Evolution True or False?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 6:47 am

Originally posted by Carbonyl:
Well I have no idea how to get PM so I'll say it here...

I asked your degree and told you mine because I would like to address your misconceptions regarding scientific fact from theory but I would like a base to draw some comparison/contrast/parallels to the evolution theory. For example, if your is field neurobiology I can point out how an action potential occurs with a flow of sodium and potassium ions and this an everlasting/undeniable/replicatable *static* fact. Versus religions which changes "facts" are dynamic because sects/beliefs/cults/visions or what have you change on a daily basis. If your degree is in a pseudo-science like psychology or sociology don't bother responding because you are brainwashed or dry-cleaned beyond my abilities.

We're heading on to the airport in a couple of hours, so I shouldn't be up here, but...I just couldn't help reading the last page of this thread, which I'd neglected since preparations began earlier this week.

As to getting CE's curiculum vitae, all you need to do is provide her with your email address.

For the rest, CE has replied to your questions in a manner that is forthright, informative, and doesn't adopt the condescending tone you've set. (Really--was it necessary to laugh at her remarks? Is this how you enter an exchange of ideas?)

After she went to all that effort, presumably you'll have something better in response than to take a generic swipe at her choice of profession. We're all equal, up here: some are fresh out of school, others have been around for a while; some are in the hard sciences, others are in a variety of other professions, and all that matters is the content of what they write.

Surely you can't mean that CE's remarks are to be discarded because you can't answer her questions in turn, and have to resort to professional slurs? You won't come off looking too good if that's the way you engage in discussion, here. If anybody's looking "close-minded" and unwilling to deal with the respectful remarks of their correspondents, I don't think at this point it's CE.

Just my POV.

[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Carbonyl · Post by **Carbonyl** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 6:56 am

"and with pertinent facts. "

LOL nice try. If I don't get banned I'll be here to respond to your pseudo-science as well.

Have a nice vacation and I really will try and be nice.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 7:11 am

Originally posted by Carbonyl:
"and with pertinent facts. "

LOL nice try. If I don't get banned I'll be here to respond to your pseudo-science as well.

Have a nice vacation and I really will try and be nice.

Um, you responded before I finished editing, but it really doesn't matter much, since you're again ignoring CE's comments. Try responding directly to her questions. That's what people are reading, you know, and they're not stupid enough to be misdirected by your aspersions on her profession.

Don't bother "playing nice." I could care less about that.

I'm talking about making honest, direct responses--in other words, answers that avoid resorting to slurs as a means of getting around the absence of a reply. This is hardly playing nice. It can be pretty brutal--such as the way CE effectively trashed your supercilious remarks aimed at her.

Being respectful is a way of keeping the static down in conversation. It facilitates delivery of the message, instead of trying to distract people with sideshows.

So do try again. And don't worry about my "pseudo-science." Since I haven't even touched upon the science aspect of this issue in my posts, you're only imagining my comments.

Or as you would say, LOL!

[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 7:13 am

<snip>

Have a good vacation, Fable.

[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: Silur ]

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 7:47 am

The only thing I have to say about evolution is this: There are an awful lot of homo sapiens out there who could easily be mistaken for chimps. A rather tall variation on the chimp, which possesses a semi-comprehensible language, albeit with a very limited vocabulary; and which conducts itself with all the intelligence, discipline, and respectfulness of a baboon engaged in projecting its own feces into the face of the nearest onlooker. This particular type of homo sapiens is the perfect example of evolutionary theory's "survival of the fittest", since it only cares for its own self and destroys others in the pursuit of its own gratification.

So in my mind the question is not one of evolution versus creationism. Rather -- looking at the species I have just described, how far has evolution really come? I mean, if we have this mongrel species running around, with the appearance of a human but the behavior of a chimp (or baboon), can we really say we have evolved so very far?

T'lainya · Post by **T'lainya** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 7:56 am

*Blows moderator whistle*
Please refrain from personal attacks. Please keep the debate civil and relevant to the issues.
Sorry Loner..that wasn't directed at you

[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: T'lainya ]

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 8:55 am

That statement suggests that you have misinterpretted the point of science. Science is about discovering the truth by trying to prove your theories/hypotheses wrong. Let me explain this since you and CE seem to be having trouble understanding this.

If you try to prove something right, you will focus on those instances in which the theory/hypotheses holds true and you will automatically interpret ambiguous data in favor of what you're trying to prove right.

However, if you try to prove it wrong, you specifically search for those instances in which the theory/hypotheses is false. When you find these instances, you rework your theory/hypothesis to account for this instance and start the process again. You keep doing this until you are unable to find any instances in which the theory/hypothesis is wrong; thus finding the truth.

This is, as I stated in my previous post, a misinterpretation of Karl Popper specifically and scientific method in general. Since you do not know who Karl Popper is, I will supply you with some links. I believe you will like him, since you (at least rudimentarily) share a common belief in falsification. Please observe that although his theories are revolutionary and changed the world of science, much has happened since, and Popper is now only part of the methodology of science, just the way Kuhn (Poppers "opposite", sort of), Heisenberg (the poor guy must be spinning in his grave, being IMPO the most misinterpreted researcher in modern history), etc are.

[url="http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/falsification.html"]http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/falsification.html[/url]
[url="http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/"]http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/[/url]
[url="http://www.educacao.pro.br/popper_and_the_philosophy_of_edu.htm"]http://www.educacao.pro.br/popper_and_the_philosophy_of_edu.htm[/url]

Evolutionists don't make accounts for instances in which their theories don't hold true. They ignore them because they are focused on proving their ideas right(and creationists wrong).

Quite the contrary. Many theories regarding evolution are falsified by the principles described above. Since science documents both positive and negative results, there are numerous documents to prove it.
Lamarck is the obvious example when discussing evolution, see

[url="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html"]http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html[/url]

Scientists researching evolution are not all dedicated to proving creationism wrong. Considering that creationism is next to unheard of everywhere except in the US, I think you seriously overestimate the impact of creationism on research in evolution.

You won't get anywhere in science by _ignoring_ data that contradicts your theory. Science is extremely competitive, so if a scientist publishes something for which he has no proof, he will be the laughing stock of the entire planet. I especially remember the "cold fusion" debate in 1989, and they just didn't check their data properly before going public. For reference see

[url="http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion.html"]http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion.html[/url]

Scientists are no better than most, and some will take any opportunity to miscredit their competitors, or at least put them at a disadvantage. Since they are all competing for funding and prestige, I would say they check their data many times before presenting them as proof of anything. Need I mention that the scientists in the article above aren't working in any lab we've ever heard of?

Look at it this way: Science is like hockey, except all teams are on the ice at once. There are referees to see that everyone follows the rules, but there is no penaltybox. If you break the rules, the judges just let all the other teams beat the **** out of you. The team that has the puck is the one with the latest discovery. Everyone else want's to get the puck. Having the puck gives you prestige and money which makes it easier to hold the puck. Breaking rules makes it next to impossible to ever get it. If you're good enough at playing hockey you get to be referee, in which case you get to see to it that the other players follow the rules. *My deepest apologies to scientists everywhere for this crude simplification.*

Yes, there is at least one internationally approved referee-system for science. Here's an article describing some of the aspects of peer review, and you can choose which link to follow depending on which source you find the most reliable (authorative). I'd go for Nature every day of the week (it is also shorter).

[url="http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/nature2.html"]http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/nature2.html[/url]
[url="http://helix.nature.com/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html"]http://helix.nature.com/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html[/url]

Creationists don't make accounts for instances in which their theories don't hold true. They ignore them because they are focused on proving their ideas right(and evolutionists wrong).

I wish. Unfortunately there is little discussion regarding the factual evidence for creation. The main focus of a creationism vs evolution discussion is (as you can see from this board as well as numerous others) to try to disprove evolution. I have yet to see a hypothesis regarding creation that doesn't just say that the bible says so. As far as theories go, there are none - see the scientific requirements for qualifying as a theory.

As a true scientist, I will not try to prove anything right. I will only try to disprove.

Basically what you're saying is that since you're a real scientist, you are right and I am wrong and we should just take your word for it. The term for this is authorative epistemology. Unfortunately, science doesn't work that way, so if you wish to disprove something, you need to do much more than just say "not so" enough times. The requirements on proof, as I have stated previously, are the same regardless of what the proof is proof of. Since proof that disproves one theory generally proves another, there can be no difference.

There is a general principle that has less to do with scientific method and more with common sense, and that is that the more controversial your claim, the stronger the evidence. If, for instance, I were to claim that Quantum physics revises mathematical axioms, I would need to substantiate that with proof (logical or empirical) and references to other researchers works in the field. Considering the fact that I'm going against the entire world's physicists on this, I would need very convincing evidence indeed. I wouldn't want to be caught with my pants down when Hawking starts asking questions.

Here's a reference to general principles of research. It is mainly focused on social studies, but the foundations are the same for all sciences. I especially recommend the section on positivism & post-positivism.

[url="http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/contents.htm"]http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/contents.htm[/url]

The definitions that you claim are wrong aren't my personal opinion - they are the basis for research all over the world. Thus, if you want to revise them, please do so either by reference or by proof. This particular version can be found at

[url="http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html"]http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html[/url]

which is a highly simplified description of the terminology. A different source of the same information along with more information about science as a whole can be found at

[url="http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html"]http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html[/url]

If nothing else, you should read that one. If you're really interested, I can send you a list of books regarding scientific method and epistemology. I can also recommend the following, although it has a %@$ interface, the pages 1 to 12 are relevant to this discussion.

[url="http://books.nap.edu/books/030907309X/html/1.html#pagetop"]http://books.nap.edu/books/030907309X/html/1.html#pagetop[/url]

Actually, law is a stronger term. As you have stated, a fact is not necessarily true. A fact is nothing more than a glorified theory.

Like I said, a fact is a glorified theory.

Refer to what I said earlier talking about proving and disproving.

Evolution is, whether you call it fact or theory, not proven to be true and is thus not a scientific law and thus is not necessarily true. Refer to my commments about proving and disproving.

Slight correction, a theory is the result of a tested hypothesis(when it is not proven false). It is based on scientific facts, laws, and other hypotheses.

Your statements may be true or false but unless you can substantiate your claims with references or proof, they are just YPO. I'll just go with the rest of the world's definition for now. When it comes to terminology, it is generally a good idea to go with the majority, since that makes communication possible with the greater number of persons - same thing as with language in general. Not much point in speaking Twendi.

If you are correct in the statement that evolution in not a proven fact, there must be some form of falsification of it available. Could you please give reference to such information. I have numerous references to the contrary. Until such time, I will consider this YPO as well.

How can I misinterpret someone I've never heard of?

See above.

You're assuming that I'm trying to prove the Biblical account. It is merely pointing out a "coincidence." When I post it, I will explain more of the "point" to it.

No I'm not assuming anything. I am asking you to tell me why the biblical account should be taken into consideration - this irregardless of what you want to prove. What scientific value does the bible have? If any, please motivate. If a particular star constellation coincides with the punctuation of a page in Winnie the Poh, does that make Winnie the Poh relevant to astronomy?

There are an infinite number of coincidences that have no correlation whatsoever, so if this is "just a coincidence" then stating it is pointless. If there is a correlation, then by the definition of correlation it is not a coincidence. So which is it? Oh, and by the way, if it is a correlation, you need to _prove_ that it isn't just coincidence. You may opt to disprove that it is coincidence, which amounts to pretty much the same thing.

I'll not shorten my sig any and I'll not uncheck the "show signature" box when posting repeatedly in a topic, either. I use my sig as a "marker" of sorts to know where I am when scrolling through a lot of posts.

Your loss.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 9:26 am

Originally posted by C Elegans:
SS and MM! (Also, I was also going to urge you all to present an alternative to evolution

Eminem might present one, but I won't directly present one until after disprovig evolution. You're not going to accept an alternative as long as you believe evolution is true unless I were to try to prove the alternative true, but I don't prove things, I disprove them. You may find this hard to believe, but I, without any degrees, am more of a scientist than most scientists who have degrees. I would already be doing important research in the areas of gravitational and temporal physics if it weren't for the fact that I have to have a degree before I can do this stuff.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
Carbonyl, SS and MM, since you are all residents of the US, I assume you are familiar with the National Academies of Science (NAS).

The only NAS I am familiar with is the New American Standard translation of the Bible. I do not pay attention to government formed scientific committies, at least not enough to know who they are.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
Journals and magazines with no peer-review, is not regarded as "scientific journals", since they have no external control of the quality of the works presented.

I subscribe to Scientific American and Popular Science. I would subscribe to more, but my funds are too limited to pay the high subscription rates.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
Since NAS is the official scientific organ advicing the government

You think this improves their credibility?

Originally posted by C Elegans:
NAS has recommended the US government not to teach creationism as an alternative to evolution.

This reminds me of my 7th grade science class. I had a great Science teacher. She and I were great friends, until we started studying evolution in class. She was refusing to teach both sides of the arguement, so...I tought the rest of the class the side of the arguement she was leaving out. Since this is a contraversial topic, one must know all the "facts" on both sides of the arguement before one can make an accurate decision of what they believe to be true. I should think that you would agree on that, CE.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
I'm not posting this because I'm trying to make you change your minds about creation or evolution, I'm posting it to show my posts indeed do reflect the mainstream consensus. But don't take my word for it. Don't take NAS word for it. Go ahead and contact other science academies, look in scientific journals, textbooks, lexicons/theusaurus, etc.

Heehee, I won't take anyone's word for it. Not yours, not the scientific community's, not even my girlfriend's. I'm not trying to make you change your mind on the subject either. I'm merely here to provide you with the "facts" you are missing(those of the other side of the arguement) so that you may then look at it all impartially and come to a final conclusion.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
I'm part of the science community, which may be viewed either as an automathic bias, or as if I'm trying to prove my points by showing off my degrees and professional achivements.

I would like to know what your education is, out of curiousity. It won't have any effect on your scientific credibility(from my viewpoint) because to me, those show how much work you're willing to do to actually study in the field of your choice, not how much you know of the subject. Through self-teaching, I've already learned more about physics than I would in High School, or even a basic University Physics class, so degrees don't impress me.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
What is hypocritical with having the same demands on creationism as I have on the theory of evolution? The NAS is also arguing evolution is a fact. The consenus in the area is that evolution is a fact and a theory, according to my post where I describe the 3 parts of the The theory of evolution. Is it me personally you find hypocritical, insensitive and close-minded, or evolutionary biology in general?

You do seem to be a little hypocritical and close-minded; but I find that's common among evolutionists(trust me, I've debated with more than my fair share of'em). Evolutionary biology also tends to be "close-minded" but I think that more has to do with the evolutionists than the field of science.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
I took this definition from a scientific paper, and I also found it in several univerity websites. If you have references that say otherwise, please post them.

I think he(?) was getting confused between evolution(adaptation) and the theory of evolution, as far as which one you were defining.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
You quote me out of context. In my post, I clearly defined what part of the evolution was considered a fact, and I also defined what a "scientific fact" is. You might wonder why a common ancestor of all life on earth is considered a fact? It's not because it can be replicated in vivo, we can replicate this in vivo, it's because we can study the result of it.

And this is why Newton's Law of Gravity is a law and the theory of evolution is at most a "scientific fact," which as I stated previously is just a glorified theory.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
Yes, I think it is scary. Young earth creationism believes the earth is about 6000 years old, and that species were created separately. Cosmology and astronomy shows that the universe is at least about 20 billion years old. The earth sciences like geology show that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Biology and genetics shows that life has been around for a much longer time and that humans have been around for a much longer time that 6000 years. I think it's scary that people neglect all of this for the sake of a literal and "absolute" interpretation of the bible.

Nah, that isn't scary. Narrow minded, maybe; but not scary. This is also why I refuse to be labeled a creationist. Something I must point out. Creationists have a tendancy to use the Bible as a "science book." This is wrong to do and idiotic to do. However, if you really take a look at the Bible and science in a comparative, you'll find that they agree on pretty much everything except for evolution.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
hope you excuse me for this, SS, I'll address you personally later, but you don't seem as upset as Carbonyl, that's why I'm addressing his post first. You are of course welcome to comment further on my comments.

I don't mind you replying to Carbonyl first. When people are upset, they tend to be impatient, which makes them more upset.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
SS is making a common error here, overlooking the basic fact that this is not at all what evolution says. Evolution says the evolution of vision begins with photoreceptive cells, clustering to an eye-spot, developing into a pinhole eye...etc. That transitional forms eventually resulting in the human eye, must have been blind, is a conclusion that tells me SS does not fully understand, or is not fully familiar with, the theory of evolution. Nothing wrong with this ? but I wanted to point out to SS that some more reading on the subject would be beneficial for her and make discussions easier.

Finally a decent answer to this question. I still don't agree with evolution, but I am glad to finally get some decent answers to these "naive" questions.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
It was many years ago I took physic's classes, but IIRC "entropy" is a thermodynamic property, a basic concepts in the thermodynamic laws that is not applicable to open systems. Sometimes the word is used in a popular sense, usually to indicate that a closed system will disorder or decay over time. In any case, a living organism and the earth itself is an open system (the sun provides energy influx to earth), so entropy is not applicable here. To me, the above statement suggests that SS has indeed misunderstood either the concept "entropy", or basic biology, or both. Or did SS again, like with the words "scientist" and "science" refer to something different from what mainstream science mean with the word? If so, please explain what you mean.

You recall correctly about entropy being a thermodynamic property. The Third Law of Thermodynamics, IIRC. IIRC, you stated that you had read Hawking's book(which one? or did you read both of'em?). IIRC, he talks about this in one of them. I've read a lot of physics books, so it is hard to remember exactly what was in which book.

Something that you apparently do not know, which, since you're obviously not a physicist(no offense), is not all that surprising.

Here are some summaries.

1.)Quantum Mechanics is the study of really tiny.

2.)Cosmology the study of the really big.

3.)Physics terms/thoeries that apply directly to Quantum Mechanics are often referred to when talking about Cosmology(and other sciences).

Your comment about the sun providing energy to Earth is true, but it is false in its assumption that this will always occur. The sun is using up its fuel even as we speak. I don't know, nor do I care, when it will run out of hydrogen to fuse into helium because it will be long after any of us are gone.

Your comment about the human body being unaffected by entropy, I disagree with. Look at an 18-year-old, then at 100-year-old. With the help of modern medicine and keeping active, a 100-year-old can remain fairly active, but you can still see the effects of entropy.

In response to comments about me misunderstanding Heisenberg:

You're a psychologist, right, CE? If so, you know that when studying....oh...lets say...a group of kids, the kids will act differently if they know you are studying them than they act when they don't know you're studying them. The researcher/observer has to take all possible to steps to remove herself from what is being observed so as not to effect the results. That is the essence of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. When he wrote the principle, he was specifically talking about measuring the position and speed of electrons, but the principle applies elsewhere as well. If you were a physicist, you would know this.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
I'm suggesting to SS that for instance some basic reading about theories in science is good if one is to discuss the definition of science and the meaning of scientific jargon. (And if a person want to be taken seriously by the scientific community or wants to participate in a scientific debate, such reading is not only good but essential.)

I do such reading; but I'm a physicist, not a biologist. To give some credibility to this statement...: Until the 6th grade, all I read were non-fiction books. In 9th grade, I started reading 2-3 physics books every month or two. I'm currently in the middle of 3 different physics books. I must admit, though, that I have slacked off a little since I started reading fantasy books.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
If you can present a scientific theory that is equal to or better, than evolution, and I promise you I will abandon evolution the same minute.

*begins searching for a good chart of the geologic column* I don't expect this to count as "equal to or better than evolution," but it is relevant to all of this.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
Not only will I personally abandon evolution, I will start spreading the word. As a scientist, it's a part of my job to spread information to peers and other people.

Hmm...maybe there is a true scientist in you after all.

I must say that you are the first evolutionist I have ever seen say such a thing. It is refreshing to know that not all evolutionists are extremely closed-minded.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
Remember though, that a scientific Theory of Creation must fulfil the same criterion and withstand the same tests as any other scientific theory (and evolution has done so far). A scientific theory is not revised by statements of personal opinions or untestable speculation.

Of course. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
2. References to studies or observations that support your theory may be taken from peer-reviewed scientific journals only. (Everybody knows Nature and Science, but there are many, many such journals. Lists of scientific journals are available on the net.)

I'm sorry to say that I'm not familiar with Nature and Science; but then, I focus more on physics than on biology so that may be why...

Originally posted by C Elegans:
3. Statements referring to gods will not be considered scientific data, and thus not evidence. A statement like "the shared errors in pseudogenes are there because god made it that way" will not be considerered evidence.

You won't find me refering to any god of the gaps.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
(@SS, you said in an earlier post you could easily become more famous that president GW Bush. Now, here's a golden opportunity! If you can present a theory that has better explanatory power and predictions than evolution, you will indeed be more famous than Bush, you will be regarded as a Galileo or Einstein of the 21st century. )

Just as long as there isn't a limit on how many major theories/ideas you can prove wrong.

I'm already on proving Einstein's statement that it is impossible to travel faster than light wrong.

Then there's my theory of the multiverse that I formulated through expansion of Hawking's ideas of Imaginary Time(you might be familiar with these). As you can see, I'm not a biologist. So I'm not likely to provide anything to replace evolution, other than creation and I'm not going to push creation. For one, my interpretation of the Biblical account of creation is different than most(a bit more scientific, to be exact)...

Originally posted by nael:
my dear lord...that's the longest post i have ever seen.

They'll quite likely get longer.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 10:07 am

@Silur I did not mean to say that all evolutionists disregard instances in which their theorise are false. What I meant was that all the ones I've met(except possible for CE and you) do.

Originally posted by Silur:
Scientists researching evolution are not all dedicated to proving creationism wrong. Considering that creationism is next to unheard of everywhere except in the US, I think you seriously overestimate the impact of creationism on research in evolution.

Okay, let me refer to something I said in another post. Imo, the terms evolutionist and creationist are best suited for the extremists. When I make statements such as what I made, I'm referring to the extremists. I do not like extremist evolutionists or extremist creationists. I admit I am biased against them, but as I say, I am biased against them.

Originally posted by Silur:
You won't get anywhere in science by _ignoring_ data that contradicts your theory. Science is extremely competitive, so if a scientist publishes something for which he has no proof, he will be the laughing stock of the entire planet.

You misread what I said. I'm not talking about not having proof. I'm talking about having not removed all of the untruths, or making an account of them in the theory.

Originally posted by Silur:
Look at it this way: Science is like hockey, except all teams are on the ice at once. There are referees to see that everyone follows the rules, but there is no penaltybox. If you break the rules, the judges just let all the other teams beat the **** out of you. The team that has the puck is the one with the latest discovery. Everyone else want's to get the puck. Having the puck gives you prestige and money which makes it easier to hold the puck. Breaking rules makes it next to impossible to ever get it. If you're good enough at playing hockey you get to be referee, in which case you get to see to it that the other players follow the rules. *My deepest apologies to scientists everywhere for this crude simplification.*

Okay...I think I understand what you're saying here and if so, then I agree. However, hockey is not the best metaphor to use talking to me. I know little about it, care less about it, and pay even less attention to it.

Originally posted by Silur:
I wish. Unfortunately there is little discussion regarding the factual evidence for creation. The main focus of a creationism vs evolution discussion is (as you can see from this board as well as numerous others) to try to disprove evolution. I have yet to see a hypothesis regarding creation that doesn't just say that the bible says so. As far as theories go, there are none - see the scientific requirements for qualifying as a theory. [/QB]

Okay, so maybe "theory" isn't the best word to have used in what I was saying. I was merely pointing out that evolutionists and creationists(the extremists, remember?) do basically the same thing, specifically when they get into debates.

I am trying to disprove evolution, yes. I believe creation is true(though my interpretation is unconventional), but that is not why I'm trying to disprove evolution. I just don't see evolution as being true.

Originally posted by Silur:
Basically what you're saying is that since you're a real scientist, you are right and I am wrong and we should just take your word for it. The term for this is authorative epistemology. Unfortunately, science doesn't work that way, so if you wish to disprove something, you need to do much more than just say "not so" enough times.

I did not even come close to saying that. Don't put words in my mouth, I can do that just fine myself. I will provide things to disprove evolution, but currently, we're too busy debating what science is.

I also do not claim that the information I will provide will disprove evolution beyond any shadow of a doubt to ya'll. I am providing the information. It is up to you to draw conclusions.

Originally posted by Silur:
There is a general principle that has less to do with scientific method and more with common sense, and that is that the more controversial your claim, the stronger the evidence. If, for instance, I were to claim that Quantum physics revises mathematical axioms, I would need to substantiate that with proof (logical or empirical) and references to other researchers works in the field. Considering the fact that I'm going against the entire world's physicists on this, I would need very convincing evidence indeed. I wouldn't want to be caught with my pants down when Hawking starts asking questions.

If you have anything to say on the quantum physics/math subject, check the "Believing you're right vs. Being Right"(?) topic.

Don't get into physics unless you're prepared to get thrashed, no offense. I am a physicist. This is more of a warning than trying to convince you of anything: I am, by both definitions of the word, a genius. Uh...as to both definitions, I forget who said what they are(I think it was Hawking, but I don't remember for sure), so I'll post them.

Genius:

1.)IQ(I'm sure C Elegans has stuff to say about this one)

2.)Someone who sees things in ways that most people do not yet comprehend(i.e., artistic genius, musical genius, computer genius(would also include Galileo, Newton(maybe he said this? Gosh, my memory sucks sometimes...), etc.)

More of this warning: I am also an arguer. I have a rather fierce arguing style(I have a tendancy to tear apart my opponents arguements, sometimes at the expense of their emotional state...), though I have refined my 'talent' for arguing to be less 'damaging.' I still have a tendancy to anger people when arguing with them. I just want you to know this so that maybe you won't be as likely to get angry.

Originally posted by Silur:
No I'm not assuming anything. I am asking you to tell me why the biblical account should be taken into consideration - this irregardless of what you want to prove. What scientific value does the bible have? If any, please motivate.

The Bible doesn't have direct scientific value. I never said it did. That is why I'm not trying to prove creationism. However, the Bible and science agree on basically everything except for the theory of evolution itself(*is only including the theory that one species evolved into another leading to the modern day organisms and nothing else in this). The fact that the Bible, written by 40-50 different authors spanning 1500-1800 years, coincides so 'perfectly' with science is just too much of a coincidence for me to accept as just a coincidence. If you need "proof" that the Bible coincides so well with science, I can provide, given the time to re-research these things.

Originally posted by Silur:
Your loss.

My loss? What? How? Ne? Nani?

[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: Sailor Saturn ]

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 10:25 am

Originally posted by Carbonyl:
Well I have no idea how to get PM so I'll say it here...

I asked your degree and told you mine because I would like to address your misconceptions regarding scientific fact from theory but I would like a base to draw some comparison/contrast/parallels to the evolution theory. For example, if your is field neurobiology I can point out how an action potential occurs with a flow of sodium and potassium ions and this an everlasting/undeniable/replicatable *static* fact. Versus religions which changes "facts" are dynamic because sects/beliefs/cults/visions or what have you change on a daily basis.

If you go to "my profile", you will see a list of your PM:s. (I'll send you one as a test - if you don't recieve it, just post an e-mail address and I'll send you my CV

). If you want to send a PM to for intance me, just go to on of my posts and click on the icon with 2 people and an envelope.

I wish to repeat that I will consider all arguments and evidence regardless of who posted them or what education this person has, as long the arguments/hypothesis/theory presented as evidence, fulfills the standard scientific criteria as agreed in international mainstream science.

Please do post your ideas about how the Na/K flow when the AP occurs, are relevant to our discussions about definition of common use of terms in the science and science as a self revising process. I'm well familiar with the AP in neurons at least, so don't worry about posting your ideas. If there's anything in your reasoning I don't understand, I'll just ask you.

Looking forward to hearing your ideas!

@SS: Nature and Science are the most renowned scientific journals of our time. The both deal with all scientific fields, and they only publish stuff that is considered so important that it's in the interest of the general scientific community as a whole.

Most of the great discoveries of our time were first published in Nature or Science, physicisist's like Bohr, Einstein and Hawking published their discoveries there, as well as modern great discoveries such as the sheep Dolly and the human genome sequencing.

(PS I'm going away for a while, I'll be back tomorrow evening.)

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Sun Sep 09, 2001 12:52 pm

Posted by Loner -

The only thing I have to say about evolution is this: There are an awful lot of homo sapiens out there who could easily be mistaken for chimps. A rather tall variation on the chimp, which possesses a semi-comprehensible language, albeit with a very limited vocabulary; and which conducts itself with all the intelligence, discipline, and respectfulness of a baboon engaged in projecting its own feces into the face of the nearest onlooker. This particular type of homo sapiens is the perfect example of evolutionary theory's "survival of the fittest", since it only cares for its own self and destroys others in the pursuit of its own gratification.

So in my mind the question is not one of evolution versus creationism. Rather -- looking at the species I have just described, how far has evolution really come? I mean, if we have this mongrel species running around, with the appearance of a human but the behavior of a chimp (or baboon), can we really say we have evolved so very far?

LMAO!

- A very good question indeed!

And in our still aggressive state will we allow ourselves enough peace and time to put this right?

This is all getting to need detailed educated responses now, a bit beyond me, but great to read though! I shall lurk from now on...

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:44 pm

Here is something I found while searching for a good chart of the geologic column.

[url="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-137.htm"]Ten Misconceptions About The Geologic Column[/url]

I found it quite interesting. I hope you will also find it interesting.

Edit: Here is something else I found at that site.

[url="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-085.htm"]The Tenets of Creationism[/url](I don't agree with the literal 6 day creation mentioned in tenet 3 of Biblical Creationism, but that's the only thing I found I didn't agree with.)

[ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: Sailor Saturn ]

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Sun Sep 09, 2001 9:33 pm

Some more stuff I found while searching for a chart of the geologic column. *wonders if she'll actually find the chart*

[url="http://www.island.net/~superior/evolution/column.html"]The Geologic Column[/url]

[url="http://www.island.net/~superior/evolution/selection.html"]Natural Selection[/url]

[url="http://www.island.net/~superior/evolution/genetic.html"]Genetic Mutations[/url]

[url="http://www.island.net/~superior/evolution/fossils.html"]Fossils[/url]

[url="http://www.island.net/~superior/evolution/radio.html"]Radiometric Dating[/url]

[url="http://www.island.net/~superior/evolution/spontan.html"]Spontaneous Generation[/url]

[url="http://www.island.net/~superior/evolution/entropy.html"]Entropy[/url]

[url="http://www.island.net/~superior/evolution/chance.html"]Chance[/url]

[url="http://www.island.net/~superior/evolution/mind.html"]The Mind[/url] *found this one quite funny*

[url="http://www.island.net/~superior/evolution/conclusi.html"]Conclusions[/url](hehe, a bit naive using only one of the definitions...but hehe

)

Okay, I'd say the most relevant ones here are Entropy and Spontaneous Generation. The others are just fun to read(imo).

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:02 pm

I finally found what appears to be a good chart of the Geologic Column. As someone who is obviously a bit more up to date on these things than I am, C Elegans, could you take a look at this and tell me if it is accurate enough? If you consider it accurate enough, I'll use it for my post showing the ambiguity of the geologic column as proof of anything.

[url="http://www.intelligentdesign.org/menu/evolution/fossils/fossils.htm"]The Fossil Record[/url]

jthack · Post by **jthack** » Mon Sep 10, 2001 1:18 am

Wow there is alot of good back and forth comments about this topic. It can be a very powerful talking about ones beliefs. Everyone deserves to think what they do and there are certainly a few described in previous posts. I can't say that I believe evolution or creationism myself as I don't think there is enough real information that I myself have seen. Which brings me to my point. I strongly think that what you believe in must be of your own thoughts. It is all well and good to back up your statements with this reference or that one, but they are all someone elses work and therfore hearsay, or 2nd hand knowledge for everyone else who wasn't there to witness the results. Of course you want to read others and think of their writings, but perhaps only to use them has a guidline and foundation to our own ideas and thoughts. I think this applies both scientifically as well as to areas of faith. I feel most of you would probably think of yourselves as belonging to that group, strong intellagent and knowing of ourselves. I know I do. But there is the rub. I don't think any of us, myself included, except the few who truly think outside the boundries, really are original.
To make my posistion clear I do not believe in any God or Power decideding any fate of mine. At the same time I don't see the fossil record and Theory of Evolutin providing all the answers either. So you could say I am completly up in the air and I honestaly don't know and am currently looking for some understanding for myself. I know that I am my own being and thats about all I know.

So I must ask of CE and SS a few things to clarify who thinks what. Hope I am not stepping on any toes.
@CE respectfully could you list anything of your own experiences that would proove your beliefs? I state it that way becuase you certainly are well written and speak with authority, yet as you say, your not an expert in this area. Have you actualy seen these studies being replicated or just what you have read of them?

Do you believe evolution to be the method of God? I certainly don't know for myself as once again I have seen very little on the matter but I tend to be very sceptical. Is every thing just a random event, that though observation and experimentation is explainable or knowable?

@SS you are quite strong in your statements and reading what you have written peaked my interest. In your last few post you gave link that you stated matched some of your beliefs but not all. What I find interesting is that you are using information and links written with a goal already in mind. This seems to differ from your earlier statement that anything with a certain goal will look and find the results thet are looking for. The disprooving of evolution in one form or another seemed to be a commen theme when I read them. You also have stated that you dont proove things you disproove them. I take it that you already have done that in terms of your faith in God.

May I ask what your process was? What disproofs did you find until you were left with your truth of god? Did you apply your standards to this or are you just absolutly positive of the existance of God?

Everyone has teriffic points and I am glad to have read them, but still they don't really show anything either way in terms of any thing other than personal beliefs one way or another. Here is a thought that been on my mind.

We are all Human
We are all Homo Sapiens
We are man and animal

I think we are both and that it is important not to overlook one for the other.
Sorry if I am being a #%$!

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Drako ]

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon Sep 10, 2001 4:59 am

Hi again

@ drako. I think you put to high a standart for what counts as knowledge. I know that the sun is made mostly of hydrogen. have i seen this? no. i have seen the sun but that doesnt count.
Today most philosiphers define 'knowledge' as 'caused true belief'. on this account i do know the sun is made mostly of hydrogen because there is a causal link between the fact and my belief - mediated by sceintists and spectrometers and what have you.

@ SS. your chart looks fine to me. but before you go and explain it in some other way than evolution bear in mind that it can be described by an INFINITE number of theories. this goes for all facts that we aim to descripe with a theory. in the jargon - all theories are underdetermined by the facts. (exept in math and philosophy which are concerned with necessary truthes)
Evolution is a powerful theory because its simple and postulates no entities out side the material realm and for many other reasons.

Im off

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Sep 10, 2001 7:58 am

Originally posted by Drako:
@SS you are quite strong in your statements and reading what you have written peaked my interest. In your last few post you gave link that you stated matched some of your beliefs but not all. What I find interesting is that you are using information and links written with a goal already in mind. This seems to differ from your earlier statement that anything with a certain goal will look and find the results thet are looking for. The disprooving of evolution in one form or another seemed to be a commen theme when I read them. You also have stated that you dont proove things you disproove them. I take it that you already have done that in terms of your faith in God.

First, I wanna say that those links were not for the purpose of prove or disprove anything specifically. They were merely to provide information that may or may not pertain directly to things I will state later on. I merely happened upon those sites while searching for a good chart of the geologic column. One could say that I am already biased in favor of God when it comes to scientific things, but that would show how little that person knows about me. As I have stated before, I'm a scientist(despite my current lack of degrees, but hey, I'm working on it!

) and I believe in gathering all the 'facts' and then making my decision.

Originally posted by Drako:
May I ask what your process was? What disproofs did you find until you were left with your truth of god? Did you apply your standards to this or are you just absolutly positive of the existance of God?

I am absolutely positive in the existance of God for several reasons. I have yet to discover any proof that God does not exist, but I have seen countless proof that God does exist.

I want to point out something real quick. This is a bit off the topic, but it has to do with what Drako was asking me. Stephen Hawking, through all his discoveries and studies in physics, came to the conclusion that There Is A God. His vision of God is an impersonal being who sat things in motion and just sat back to observe; but the fact is that he does believe that God exists. Like me, he sees all the wonders in the universe, all the complex designs in the cosmos, and all the simplistically complex designs in Quantum Physics as proof of God.

With that done, I'll go see if there is anyone else I wish to reply to.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Sep 10, 2001 8:02 am

Originally posted by Tom:
@ SS. your chart looks fine to me. but before you go and explain it in some other way than evolution bear in mind that it can be described by an INFINITE number of theories. this goes for all facts that we aim to descripe with a theory. in the jargon - all theories are underdetermined by the facts. (exept in math and philosophy which are concerned with necessary truthes)
Evolution is a powerful theory because its simple and postulates no entities out side the material realm and for many other reasons.

You seem to be thinking that I plan on using the geologic column as proof of something. If this is the case, you obviously missed what I said about using it to show its ambiguity and that, like transitional form fossils, it is irrelevant to the cause of either evolution or creation. I am also going to show something that I find quite interesting, merely because of the amazing 'coincidence.'

jthack · Post by **jthack** » Mon Sep 10, 2001 8:48 am

@Tom yes I do usually have very high standards, for just about everything, including myself. I was merely trying to say that unless you yourself have done a test on the suns elements using a spectrometer or whatever to do your measurements, that you are taking someone elses word for it. If you think that person is correct than you certainly are entitled too. I just think that alot of things are taken for granteed becuase enough people say that it is true. Take the egg as an example. A few years ago everyone knew they were horrible for you, then they were pronounced as being OK for consumption if not important even. Just a small tiny example that everything has a personal taint to it. If we all followed what the general scientific and/or religous thought, than we might still be the center of the universe with the sun revolving around us. All of those scientists are open to many things being human. Greed, pride, poor habits, just plain old making mistakes, that can alter their finding in their favor or even not. If you say you KNOW something do you know from experience or someone elses? If it is from someone elses I contend that you (not you personally Tom but 'you' plural for everyone) do not really KNOW, you are just replaying anothers idea. We can all spout off things that we have read but that is all we have done. Of course nothing personal ment.

@SS thanks for the clarifications, but I am still confused about a couple of things.

Your explanation of Stephan Hawking is all well and good but it doesn't fit with the nine tenats of Biblical Creationism which you say you agree with, except for #3. Those tenats seem very straight foreward in their statements about their veiws. Which is it that you believe again? That God is and always well be the creator and is influencing us to this day or the one that just started it all and sat back. Thanks for saying you are baised towards your beliefs. I am baised in the belief that there probably isn't one, at least not in the general terms of any religon or faith that I have experienced. I look at the stars and I wonder why a God would creat this awesume Universe with only us in mind. It is just too large and massive for me to believe we are the one and only creature out here. If there are others, are we all made in Gods image? Does God then have any and therefore no image to call his own?

Sorry for the rants everyone. It just seems like people want to say their beliefs are facts when they are just beliefs, science or religon based. No offence ment to anyone! These or my own beliefs and I don,t prescibe them to others.

"we take what we want and we leave the rest behind" Egg Foo Yong
Big Trouble in Little China
In regards to chinese beliefs

Shadow Sandrock · Post by **Shadow Sandrock** » Mon Sep 10, 2001 11:08 am

Why would we want to stop believing creation if it has been believed since the world was CREATED.

Besides, all the evidence for evolution is bull-poopy. They make up crap and put it in high school textbooks.. geesh, why don't they come up with evidence they can actually prove.... and like there's actually any missing links out there *laughs*

anyway I believe in Creation.