Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.
The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.
However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.
Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.
The film has sparked fierce debate on US Christian websites, with a typical comment dismissing evolution as "a silly theory with a serious lack of evidence to support it despite over a century of trying".
Jeremy Thomas, the Oscar-winning producer of Creation, said he was astonished that such attitudes exist 150 years after On The Origin of Species was published.
"That's what we're up against. In 2009. It's amazing," he said.
"The film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about. People have been saying this is the best film they've seen all year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up.
"It is unbelievable to us that this is still a really hot potato in America. There's still a great belief that He made the world in six days. It's quite difficult for we in the UK to imagine religion in America. We live in a country which is no longer so religious. But in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules.
"Charles Darwin is, I suppose, the hero of the film. But we tried to make the film in a very even-handed way. Darwin wasn't saying 'kill all religion', he never said such a thing, but he is a totem for people."
Creation was developed by BBC Films and the UK Film Council, and stars Bettany's real-life wife Jennifer Connelly as Darwin's deeply religious wife, Emma. It is based on the book, Annie's Box, by Darwin's great-great-grandson, Randal Keynes, and portrays the naturalist as a family man tormented by the death in 1851 of Annie, his favourite child. She is played in the film by 10-year-old newcomer Martha West, the daughter of The Wire star Dominic West.
Early reviews have raved about the film. The Hollywood Reporter said: "It would be a great shame if those with religious convictions spurned the film out of hand as they will find it even-handed and wise."
Mr Thomas, whose previous films include The Last Emperor and Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence, said he hoped the reviews would help to secure a distributor. In the UK, special screenings have been set up for Christian groups.
TL;DR A movie based on the life of Charles Darwin has apparently been getting a lot of good reviews, has been picked up by distributors world wide, and was selected to open the Toronto Film Festival. However it hasn't managed to find a single company in America willing to distribute it because they're all claiming (according to the producer at least) that it'd be too controversial due to the fact that a large enough number of people here refuse to believe in evolution.
I want to believe that there's probably some other reason for this movie not getting picked up despite how well it's doing, but the poll they posted claiming that only 39% of people believe in the theory of evolution in this country shocked me a bit since I only know a handful of people that don't completely agree with it. Although I do live in a fairly liberal area.
Even if all that is true, it still puzzles me why it's not finding distribution because there have been plenty of other "blasphemous" films that have found wide release here.
On September 14 2009 03:12 Slaughter wrote: How is it at 40% that seems way to high, most Christians believe in evolution so it can't be that high of retards.
I don't get how evolution doesn't seem self evident. Mutations are evident. Characteristics being passed to descendants are evident. That a good mutation would be passed to more descendants than a bad mutation makes sense. This doesn't have to contradict faith in a God, just that God made all species the way they are today. Unless you take the bible literally I see no problem here.
I would say most young christians believe in evolution, but there are probably a lot of middle aged and old people that are brainwashed and never were educated about it.
Darwin was given more credit for evolution than he deserved.
religion is just lies about what science cant prove, and sometimes doesnt even change its views when science proves its lies.. religion is just plain filled with loopholes, sorry if i've offended anyone.
On September 14 2009 03:25 uNiGNoRe wrote: I don't see how you can "believe" in evolution. It's a fact... I don't "believe" that earth isn't flat, I know it.
Because Evolution is a theory. Theory in scientific terms implies a hypothesis. Hypotheses can ONLY be proved wrong, they can NEVER be proven right, according to the science world.
On September 14 2009 03:25 uNiGNoRe wrote: I don't see how you can "believe" in evolution. It's a fact... I don't "believe" that earth isn't flat, I know it.
Because Evolution is a theory. Theory in scientific terms implies a hypothesis. Hypotheses can ONLY be proved wrong, they can NEVER be proven right, according to the science world.
That's why.
exactly. But at this point not believing in evolution (believing the theory is wrong) is like not believing in gravity. There is so much evidence for it out there, that to not believe it requires serioud hardheadedness or ignorance.
Technically not many people 'know' the earth is not flat, but if you were to proclaim there wasnt enough evidence to prove the earth isnt flat you would (rightly) be laughed at.
some people dont agree with the scientific premise of evolution, it is very flawed. evolution is construied story we all accept, even though it uses alot of double speak. just beacuse something grows doesnt mean that it is evolving. and the mutation thing if you can point to one beneficial human mutation please do because every mutation isnt beneficial at all yet in fact it is quite the opposite.. but im not here to argue. i disagree on scientific basis and i think many others do as well. i just wanted to point that..
On September 14 2009 03:25 uNiGNoRe wrote: I don't see how you can "believe" in evolution. It's a fact... I don't "believe" that earth isn't flat, I know it.
Because Evolution is a theory. Theory in scientific terms implies a hypothesis. Hypotheses can ONLY be proved wrong, they can NEVER be proven right, according to the science world.
That's why.
Yeah, apart from the fact it can be proved in numerous different ways...
I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
Its fine. It took christians a few hundred years to accept that the earth wasn't flat, it'll take a few hundred more for evolution.
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
You're right, it is no longer a theory in the "opinion" sense anymore - Evolution is considered a "scientific theory," meaning a logic that (comprises of and) explains hundreds of observations and facts. When creationists try to say "Evolution is just a theory, not a fact" it's like looking at a book and saying "this is a book, not a page."
On September 14 2009 03:34 Weaponx3 wrote: some people dont agree with the scientific premise of evolution, it is very flawed. evolution is construied story we all accept, even though it uses alot of double speak. just beacuse something grows doesnt mean that it is evolving. and the mutation thing if you can point to one beneficial human mutation please do because every mutation isnt beneficial at all yet in fact it is quite the opposite.. but im not here to argue. i disagree on scientific basis and i think many others do as well. i just wanted to point that..
okay let me take apart this failboat one by one a) Scientific premise of evolution: so you don't agree with fossils and evidence. Awesome, I love the jury system. b) Yes, this is true. Growing is something an organism does. Evolving is something a species does. Organism =/= species. c) Beneficial human mutations include stronger muscles,. larger brains, stronger immune systems, etc. Not all mutations are extra fingers. And again, mutations occur in a specific organism, not a speciies, which is what evolution is all about. More importantly, mutations may be more beneficial under different conditions. That sixth finger may come in handy when we encounter aliens that use weaponry that requires six fingers. d) Your grammar apparently betrays the fact that obvious troll is obvious.
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
What if God is just creating different bacteria and we're watching it happen?
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
evolution is a scientific theory... the scientific definition of a theory vs. the layman's definition of a theory has led to a lot of confusion.
More importantly, evolution is a blanket name for several concepts. Just because genetic drift has been demonstrated does not necessarily mean that other portions of evolution are true, or that genetic drift is true for non-bacterial populations, etc. Hence, it is a theory. Just like most other scientific discoveries are still categorized as theory.
A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:
1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and 2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
What if God is just creating different bacteria and we're watching it happen?
On September 14 2009 03:34 Weaponx3 wrote: some people dont agree with the scientific premise of evolution, it is very flawed. evolution is construied story we all accept, even though it uses alot of double speak. just beacuse something grows doesnt mean that it is evolving. and the mutation thing if you can point to one beneficial human mutation please do because every mutation isnt beneficial at all yet in fact it is quite the opposite.. but im not here to argue. i disagree on scientific basis and i think many others do as well. i just wanted to point that..
You wanted some examples of beneficial mutations occuring in the human population. HLA antigenic variation, CCR5 mutations providing AIDs resistance, fast twist musculature, and different Hg moeities seen in swimmers are some examples
On September 14 2009 03:25 uNiGNoRe wrote: I don't see how you can "believe" in evolution. It's a fact... I don't "believe" that earth isn't flat, I know it.
Because Evolution is a theory. Theory in scientific terms implies a hypothesis. Hypotheses can ONLY be proved wrong, they can NEVER be proven right, according to the science world.
On September 14 2009 03:34 Weaponx3 wrote: some people dont agree with the scientific premise of evolution, it is very flawed. evolution is construied story we all accept, even though it uses alot of double speak. just beacuse something grows doesnt mean that it is evolving. and the mutation thing if you can point to one beneficial human mutation please do because every mutation isnt beneficial at all yet in fact it is quite the opposite.. but im not here to argue. i disagree on scientific basis and i think many others do as well. i just wanted to point that..
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
What if God is just creating different bacteria and we're watching it happen?
Then God is making bacteria evolve.
What if God didn't participate in evolution until Darwin came up with it? (e.g. evolution is a game mode that has to be discovered.)
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
What if God is just creating different bacteria and we're watching it happen?
Then God is making bacteria evolve.
What if God didn't participate in evolution until Darwin came up with it? (e.g. evolution is a game mode that has to be discovered.)
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
What if God is just creating different bacteria and we're watching it happen?
Then God is making bacteria evolve.
What if God didn't participate in evolution until Darwin came up with it? (e.g. evolution is a game mode that has to be discovered.)
Okay, something inherently wrong with all these what ifs. We don't need to care about them until you show us evidence that it is what is happening. AKA Burden of Proof, it's on you. Prove that: God exists Evolution didn't happen before the 1800s, Ex there were no examples of it and our current fossils and examples are invalid. Evolution only started happening after Darwin.
On September 14 2009 03:34 Weaponx3 wrote: some people dont agree with the scientific premise of evolution, it is very flawed. evolution is construied story we all accept, even though it uses alot of double speak. just beacuse something grows doesnt mean that it is evolving. and the mutation thing if you can point to one beneficial human mutation please do because every mutation isnt beneficial at all yet in fact it is quite the opposite.. but im not here to argue. i disagree on scientific basis and i think many others do as well. i just wanted to point that..
1) evolution takes too long time for us to notice it.
2) evolution doesn't really work any longer on us humans because we have beaten nature: everyone are fit to have reproduce and survive. No holes in the theory, it's as basic and evident as gravity..
On September 14 2009 03:34 Weaponx3 wrote: some people dont agree with the scientific premise of evolution, it is very flawed. evolution is construied story we all accept, even though it uses alot of double speak. just beacuse something grows doesnt mean that it is evolving. and the mutation thing if you can point to one beneficial human mutation please do because every mutation isnt beneficial at all yet in fact it is quite the opposite.. but im not here to argue. i disagree on scientific basis and i think many others do as well. i just wanted to point that..
It's more like they don't want to distribute it because the vocal minority of people who disbelieve evolution will protest it and get the movie a lot of negative press. It may still make money, but distributors are very frightened of negative press because there's a lot of money on the line, and while they're very willing to gamble on partial nudity of B-list actors, academic, and especially controversial academic, movies don't always get very good press.
2) A scientific theory can never explore all hypotheses. Yes, there is a TON of evidence that supports Evolution, but either way, at the end of the day, you can never explore *every* possibillity and theory, that is why scientific theories can never be proven. Is obvious evolution exists? Yes. Is it obvious that it's happening the way we think it is? Maybe. But no matter how much evidence we gather, there will still be other posibillities that exist within a theory.
On September 14 2009 03:18 Kwark wrote: I don't get how evolution doesn't seem self evident. Mutations are evident. Characteristics being passed to descendants are evident. That a good mutation would be passed to more descendants than a bad mutation makes sense. This doesn't have to contradict faith in a God, just that God made all species the way they are today. Unless you take the bible literally I see no problem here.
yeah but it kinda does contradict faith in the old testament god because it contradicts the whole adam and eve falling from paradise story. And if you throw away the adam and eve and original sin, then you've basically made everything that follows meaningless.
Evolution is not a theory. Natural selection is the theory of how evolution occurs. The process of evolution is proven and accepted, but how its mechanisms work is a theory.
On September 14 2009 04:11 Kaialynn wrote: Maybe I should have clarified my points here.
1) I believe in the theory of evolution.
2) A scientific theory can never explore all hypotheses. Yes, there is a TON of evidence that supports Evolution, but either way, at the end of the day, you can never explore *every* possibillity and theory, that is why scientific theories can never be proven. Is obvious evolution exists? Yes. Is it obvious that it's happening the way we think it is? Maybe. But no matter how much evidence we gather, there will still be other posibillities that exist within a theory.
Correct: theories can never be proven. However, the reason they are considered theory still is because any evidence that goes against it has been relatively non-existent.
However: You confuse Theory with Hypothesis.
A hypothesis is what you believe a set of observations means, and is necessary for the scientific method (upon which you will conduct tests and follow up on your hypothesis to see whether your hypothesis matches the set of data or does not).
Example: "The reason we found these rocks that look like crabs is because of evolution," is not a hypothesis. An actual hypothesis is: "The reason we found these rocks that look like crabs is because crabs are genetically related to these fossilized species" upon which DNA tests and the like can be conducted to show whether it is right or wrong. Evolution is a theory, which essentially collects the results from many hypotheses, both right and wrong, and puts them together as an explanation.
On September 14 2009 04:11 Kaialynn wrote: Maybe I should have clarified my points here.
1) I believe in the theory of evolution.
2) A scientific theory can never explore all hypotheses. Yes, there is a TON of evidence that supports Evolution, but either way, at the end of the day, you can never explore *every* possibillity and theory, that is why scientific theories can never be proven. Is obvious evolution exists? Yes. Is it obvious that it's happening the way we think it is? Maybe. But no matter how much evidence we gather, there will still be other posibillities that exist within a theory.
Correct: theories can never be proven. However, the reason they are considered theory still is because any evidence that goes against it has been relatively non-existent.
However: You confuse Theory with Hypothesis.
A hypothesis is what you believe a set of observations means, and is necessary for the scientific method (upon which you will conduct tests and follow up on your hypothesis to see whether your hypothesis matches the set of data or does not).
Example: "The reason we found these rocks that look like crabs is because of evolution," is not a hypothesis. An actual hypothesis is: "The reason we found these rocks that look like crabs is because crabs are genetically related to these fossilized species" upon which DNA tests and the like can be conducted to show whether it is right or wrong. Evolution is a theory, which essentially collects the results from many hypotheses, both right and wrong, and puts them together as an explanation.
A theory is the result of a hypothesis, no? Maybe i'm confusing theory with another term, but i'm fairly sure that a theory is a conclusion drawn from the data collected from testing a hypothesis.
ah I want to see this movie now lol. Especially after I just watched the Dawkins documentary on Darwin (The Genius of Charles Darwin).
it really is depressing how many people don't understand evolution. Schools really need to reboot their evolution teaching. I remember in my school when I learned about it it was so bad that I felt only like 10% of my class actually understood and accepted it. Too many people are going into learning about it as "ok this is just a THEORY and is just as crazy as my stupid religion so I'm just going to assume its wrong."
On September 14 2009 03:34 Weaponx3 wrote: some people dont agree with the scientific premise of evolution, it is very flawed. evolution is construied story we all accept, even though it uses alot of double speak. just beacuse something grows doesnt mean that it is evolving. and the mutation thing if you can point to one beneficial human mutation please do because every mutation isnt beneficial at all yet in fact it is quite the opposite.. but im not here to argue. i disagree on scientific basis and i think many others do as well. i just wanted to point that..
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
evolution is a scientific theory... the scientific definition of a theory vs. the layman's definition of a theory has led to a lot of confusion.
More importantly, evolution is a blanket name for several concepts. Just because genetic drift has been demonstrated does not necessarily mean that other portions of evolution are true, or that genetic drift is true for non-bacterial populations, etc. Hence, it is a theory. Just like most other scientific discoveries are still categorized as theory.
A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:
1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and 2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
QED
This is a great post. You've identied many of the subtleties behing the languistics of evolution. A little bit more should add to the discussion. Modern biologists no longer refer to evolution as a theory. Biologists now define evolution as changes in the genetic makeup of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. There are various theories including natural selection and genetic drift to explain the causes of evolution or why certain genetic traits accumulate, but the fact these mutations accumulate is no longer debatable. We have enough genetic data from populations of dolphins and humans to amoebas that document genetic differences that have accumulated in populations to state evolution occurs from a biological perspective.
On September 14 2009 03:18 Kwark wrote: I don't get how evolution doesn't seem self evident. Mutations are evident. Characteristics being passed to descendants are evident. That a good mutation would be passed to more descendants than a bad mutation makes sense. This doesn't have to contradict faith in a God, just that God made all species the way they are today. Unless you take the bible literally I see no problem here.
Essentially, there are two reasons to not accept evolution:
1: Ignorance. Hollywood Evolution is very prevalent in society. Indeed, a lot of people who accept evolution don't really understand what it is. It is very easy to doubt the veracity of evolution if you think it means Hollywood Evolution.
2: Dogma. You believe in the inerrancy of <insert religious text here>, and therefore cannot accept any scientific theory against it no matter the evidence.
The real problem is that fixing #1 requires good education. And the people who belong to #2 are sufficiently numerous and powerful that they inhibit science education, this creating #1. The real problem is Texas.
Texas is very much right-wing. It is also the second most populous state in the country. Those who control the Texas boards of education control the textbooks that get written, because no textbook publisher would dare write a book on a subject that such a market would be unwilling to purchase. Therefore the fight over the books that Texas purchases is the front line in the war on ignorance.
On September 14 2009 03:25 uNiGNoRe wrote: I don't see how you can "believe" in evolution. It's a fact... I don't "believe" that earth isn't flat, I know it.
Because Evolution is a theory. Theory in scientific terms implies a hypothesis. Hypotheses can ONLY be proved wrong, they can NEVER be proven right, according to the science world.
That's why.
Not so much. Evolution is both theory and fact.
It is a fact that species evolved. We have observed seen it, both in the laboratory and in the wild (both below and above the species line). So it is very clear that it does happen.
The Theory of Evolution states that evolution is the primary force creating biodiversity on the planet Earth. This is much bigger than any individual fact of observed evolution.
Gravity is self-evident. It is an observable and verifiable fact that things fall down. The Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all matter attracts other matter via a specific equation. That's more than just the fact of gravity.
On September 14 2009 03:34 Weaponx3 wrote: some people dont agree with the scientific premise of evolution, it is very flawed. evolution is construied story we all accept, even though it uses alot of double speak. just beacuse something grows doesnt mean that it is evolving. and the mutation thing if you can point to one beneficial human mutation please do because every mutation isnt beneficial at all yet in fact it is quite the opposite.. but im not here to argue. i disagree on scientific basis and i think many others do as well. i just wanted to point that..
Michael Phelps
Exactly. We've created a society that rewards a man for being more dolphin than human (he's physically deformed to swim) and now he could use his money and fame and gold medals and go out and have as many kids as he wanted. And his kids would be part dolphin too.
On September 14 2009 03:34 Weaponx3 wrote: some people dont agree with the scientific premise of evolution, it is very flawed. evolution is construied story we all accept, even though it uses alot of double speak. just beacuse something grows doesnt mean that it is evolving. and the mutation thing if you can point to one beneficial human mutation please do because every mutation isnt beneficial at all yet in fact it is quite the opposite.. but im not here to argue. i disagree on scientific basis and i think many others do as well. i just wanted to point that..
1) evolution takes too long time for us to notice it.
2) evolution doesn't really work any longer on us humans because we have beaten nature: everyone are fit to have reproduce and survive. No holes in the theory, it's as basic and evident as gravity..
both of those statements are simply incorrect. in creatures with very short lifespan evolution can and has been observed. from the second statement it seems that you have some fundamental missunderstanding of what evolution is, unless all reproduction was controlled and nobody died before reproducing there's no way for there to be no evolution.
For example muscular dystrophy is still evolving itself out, perhaps more so now genetics is better understood because carriers adopt rather than risk losing a child. While the prevalence of certain diseases are causing sickle cell mutations to be advantageous in areas without proper medical care.
Paul Bettany was on the Andrew Marr show this morning and said himself that this is nothing to do with Evolution not being liked; it's just that Americans aren't keen on this genre of movie and that's what is stalling the film being played.
I dont think you can be at least a modern reasonable mono-theist and believe in evolution as well. It would completely disprove the existence of god if species found their own way to improve themselves via genetics, thus humans developing intellect and foresight by themselves.
I wouldn't mind an honest to god (teehee) movie about Darwin, as it would be informative and hopefully truthful about what evolution really is said to be. I'm a Christian and an optimist, so I'm fairly convinced that most examples I see said to be proof of evolution, can be an unfathomable amount of repercussions from adaptation and deformities possible with all the different species on this earth. I apologize that I can't wrap my head around the human mind being the work of a mindless genetic process. At Deism gives us a reason why. And you can justify suffering and evil in the world today if you use traditional roman catholic values pre-vatican II.
On September 14 2009 05:01 bumatlarge wrote: At Deism gives us a reason why.
It does?
For me it doesn't when I think about it. I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that the way the human mind works is a process of biological chance but when you bring about what created God... well he was always there... that's it.
Uh what?
If you look at it as a prospect of chance even incredibly small chances happen when you have a sufficiently big sample size to work from.
A 1 in a 10 billion chance doesn't seem so terrible when you have a sample size of 100 trillion.
If you take our galaxy for instance estimates state that we have anywhere from 200 billion to 400 billion stars in it... and we're actually on the small scale as far as galaxies go. It is estimated that there are roughly 100 billion galaxies in the universe.
If you just want to go absolute low end and fill the universe with 100 billion milkyways. Multiply that by 200 billion stars (low end remember) and you have a SHIT TON OF CHANCES to trigger advanced life forms.
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
Name the new species that was produced from the bacterial colonies.
There isn't one, so they are still stuck at the "beneficial mutations are passed down to further generations more than bad mutations" and not "mutations cause new species to form".
If there was overwhelming fossil evidence, it would be an infinitely large record of weird ass creatures, none of them being the same. But that's not what fossil records show, they show a bunch of set animals in a time period, then they all die, and new animals take their place.
It's almost like every animal doesn't become a fossil.... Fossilisation requires a specific set of circumstances. When those occur you'll get fossils, when they don't you don't. It's no surprise that groups of fossils represent the animals in the area at the time the circumstances were right, and not those there before or after. You get a group of fossils from that time and place so yeah, they're similar. Then you get another group from a different time and place and they're all similar to each other. Unfortunately nature was not willing to provide a surviving fossil diary but instead pages scattered at random. To demand more evidence than could reasonably be expected is ridiculous. There is evidence, you can ignore it or you can attack the arguments behind it. But don't disregard it because fossilisation doesn't provide a perfect record, that's not an argument against it, simply an inherent flaw of the data.
On September 14 2009 05:05 Iplaythings wrote: the hardcore believing part of america never siezes to amase... Made my night cus of the ignorance of them
No reason to be ignorant towards people who have religious beliefs. Your attitude doesn't help anyone and merely ignites opposition.
Also there are all sorts of weird ass creatures. Like the armoured fish with huge jawbones. Over time the armour and the jawbones got bigger, creating new species as they went. Or the fish with air sacs that turned into swim bladders in modern fish. Or for that matter how the playpus doesn't have nipples but instead sweats milk. You want weird ass in between creatures, that's what you get when an animal realises it's an advantage to feed its young high fat and protein stuff but hasn't really got the hang of it yet.
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
Name the new species that was produced from the bacterial colonies.
There isn't one, so they are still stuck at the "beneficial mutations are passed down to further generations more than bad mutations" and not "mutations cause new species to form".
If there was overwhelming fossil evidence, it would be an infinitely large record of weird ass creatures, none of them being the same. But that's not what fossil records show, they show a bunch of set animals in a time period, then they all die, and new animals take their place.
Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci.
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
Name the new species that was produced from the bacterial colonies.
There isn't one, so they are still stuck at the "beneficial mutations are passed down to further generations more than bad mutations" and not "mutations cause new species to form".
If there was overwhelming fossil evidence, it would be an infinitely large record of weird ass creatures, none of them being the same. But that's not what fossil records show, they show a bunch of set animals in a time period, then they all die, and new animals take their place.
I see what you're saying about the fossil record. God must have come to earth at random points throughout history and added animals.
On September 14 2009 05:05 Iplaythings wrote: the hardcore believing part of america never siezes to amase... Made my night cus of the ignorance of them
No reason to be ignorant towards people who have religious beliefs. Your attitude doesn't help anyone and merely ignites opposition.
Religion is the problem here though. Not all religious people are idiots but an awful lot of the resistance to 'proven' science comes from people who reject reason and logic on the grounds of faith. Religion does hold back scientific progress, it's an unfortunate fact. That doesn't mean it's the fault of the people who keep their personal faith to their private life but it doesn't absolve religion as an institution either.
ive learned that arguing about evolution is like watching a bad movie you ultimately want your money and time back for listening to 2 hours of nonstop stupidity
On September 14 2009 06:00 Caller wrote: ive learned that arguing about evolution is like watching a bad movie you ultimately want your money and time back for listening to 2 hours of nonstop stupidity
On September 14 2009 03:18 Kwark wrote: I don't get how evolution doesn't seem self evident. Mutations are evident. Characteristics being passed to descendants are evident. That a good mutation would be passed to more descendants than a bad mutation makes sense. This doesn't have to contradict faith in a God, just that God made all species the way they are today. Unless you take the bible literally I see no problem here.
Microevolution vs macroevolution is usually the argument.
My friends ex-gf asked him the question "ask yourself this question: if evolution is real, why do monkeys still exist?" I cracked up for a longgg time. She is pretty hardcore Mormon.
On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote: About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing...
What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist?
Actually (from what I remember from my highschool physics class, could be wrong though), gravity still hasn't been proven. Thus it still is a theory. They haven't actually been able to prove it exists, despite all the factual evidence they can derive from assuming it does exist (my highschool physics teacher was also fired that year for being a lazy asshole so I could have been fed bullshit).
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
Name the new species that was produced from the bacterial colonies.
And here is every other documented instance of observed speciation, in both microbes and complex-multicellular organisms.
And mind you, we've only been looking for a few hundred years, and we have seen and/or caused all of that.
On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote: About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing...
What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist?
Asked and answered. Gravity is a verifiable fact: matter attracts matter. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all matter attracts matter with a force in inverse proportion to the square of the distance and in direct proportion of the two masses, with a constant of proportionality G.
And this is demonstrably wrong. There are other terms involved; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity corrected Newtonian gravitation.
On September 14 2009 05:05 Iplaythings wrote: the hardcore believing part of america never siezes to amase... Made my night cus of the ignorance of them
No reason to be ignorant towards people who have religious beliefs. Your attitude doesn't help anyone and merely ignites opposition.
Religion is the problem here though. Not all religious people are idiots but an awful lot of the resistance to 'proven' science comes from people who reject reason and logic on the grounds of faith. Religion does hold back scientific progress, it's an unfortunate fact. That doesn't mean it's the fault of the people who keep their personal faith to their private life but it doesn't absolve religion as an institution either.
Religion isn't the problem; dogma is. Religion didn't keep the Catholic church from endorsing evolution. Why? Because they don't have a dogmatic belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. And it is only that kind of belief that conflicts with science. Once you're able to accept that various holy books may simply be metaphor or parables intended to guide you along your faith rather than a giver of facts, then religion and science can coexist.
On September 14 2009 05:17 3 Lions wrote: I'm Christian and I don't believe in evolution.
But I see absolutely no problem with showing this movie in theaters...
Look, I understand why people have views like this...I do. But to be frank, saying you don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe that the sun is the center of our solar system...
I don't mean to be insulting, in fact I think its just a lack of knowlege that causes this (im not saying ur un-educated). No one is required to learn the theory of evolution, and if you are a believer in creation, why would you ever bother?
Another point I'd like to make... Is to attempt to strike down the idea that you you cannot have both evolution AND creation. Just because evolution exists, does not destroy creation theory. So God created all things... Why can't he have given them all the ability to evolve? The only reason that isn't in the bible (new or old testament) is because the science didn't exist yet... I can't say much about the old testament... but please remember that the new testament was not given to us in a beam of holy light from God, but that it was compiled and written by of large group of old men in Rome. There were some scripts and scrolls it is based off of, including peices of the gospels (not even writting by them themselves), but it was, in fact, edited, 'censored' so to speak, by this group (i forget what they were called at the time).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing early Catholisism (and hence all Christianity), I'm merely stating facts. Just because the new testament isn't 1st hand from Jesus or God, does not mean they do not exist.
On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote: About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing...
What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist?
Asked and answered. Gravity is a verifiable fact: matter attracts matter. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all matter attracts matter with a force in inverse proportion to the square of the distance and in direct proportion of the two masses, with a constant of proportionality G.
And this is demonstrably wrong. There are other terms involved; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity corrected Newtonian gravitation.
Yes of course, I was merely trying to point out that gravity is still 'called' a theory (newton's or Einstein), yet we all know it exists and is true. (regardless of the exact inner math involved)
to be honest i want to understand evolution in it is simplest form but the idea escapes me, especially when speaking of it being observed are we talking about micro organisims?> or are we talking about living animals such as mammals, fish, birds, insects, etc.. I think a precise and well thoughtout examples would be appreciated for many of who are still yet undecided on the matter.. because looking at the genetic makeup everything is pretty much made up of the same things its just the arrangement, i thought evolution was something new that came into existant but again like i said are we talking about on the level of an atom or of living creatures and humans..
On September 14 2009 06:32 Weaponx3 wrote: to be honest i want to understand evolution in it is simplest form but the idea escapes me, especially when speaking of it being observed are we talking about micro organisims?> or are we talking about living animals such as mammals, fish, birds, insects, etc.. I think a precise and well thoughtout examples would be appreciated for many of who are still yet undecided on the matter.. because looking at the genetic makeup everything is pretty much made up of the same things its just the arrangement, i thought evolution was something new that came into existant but again like i said are we talking about on the level of an atom or of living creatures and humans..
this is just like people who think that microeconomics is talking about the economics of the cell
On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote: About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing...
What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist?
Positive proof is only possible in logics and math, for regular science only consistensy and evidence supporting the claim is possible. This means a theory is only valid until it is proven to false or when it cant explain an observation.
This doenst however mean that the entire theory falls when it is wrong is some part, look at gravity for most cases newtons version of gravity is enough and "minor" adjustments were made in order to unify with relativistics.
Why is it that these threads always get derailed into the dumbest arguments. A hypothesis means its a logical conclusion based on little evidence. A theory means that it seems accurate, but hasn't had overwhelming proof in its favor vs. other theories. A law is the highest honor science can put on a hypothesis which means that logically there is NO other way things could work to the scientific community at that moment. I think besides Canada, America, and "third world" countries 85%+ believe in evolution. But i might be talking out my ass.
On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote: About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing...
What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist?
That's the beauty of science. Nothing can be shown to be absolutely 100% true for all time and all space. The element of uncertainty and doubt is what drives science to constantly research new ideas. That's why nothing in science can truly be "proven"; and that's also the platform religious extremes use to scare people about how evolution isn't "true."
On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote: About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing...
What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist?
Asked and answered. Gravity is a verifiable fact: matter attracts matter. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all matter attracts matter with a force in inverse proportion to the square of the distance and in direct proportion of the two masses, with a constant of proportionality G.
And this is demonstrably wrong. There are other terms involved; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity corrected Newtonian gravitation.
Even if there were no relativistic drifts, gravity would not be a fact, and it is not a fact. Technically, it could be an extremely miniscule coincidence (less likely than finding a specific particle in the entire universe) of random movement. Science does not do facts, and assertions like this is what allows people to obfuscate evolution as a mere theory.
People should stop looking upon science as some grand dispenser of "truth". All we can do is to observe the universe around us with the tools that we have and then come up with explanations for occurrences that we observe. Explanations that meet certain criteria are dubbed theories. When observations that fall outside the theory occur, it's adjusted to try to account for them or is rejected entirely in favor of a new theory.
It's impossible to "know" anything about the universe as a fact. Even something as self evident as gravity (not the theory) could in fact be the work of some devious clan of magical gremlins bent on making us believe in something that isn't actually true. However, to posit something like this as an explanation is simply ridiculous.
On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote: About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing...
What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist?
Asked and answered. Gravity is a verifiable fact: matter attracts matter. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all matter attracts matter with a force in inverse proportion to the square of the distance and in direct proportion of the two masses, with a constant of proportionality G.
And this is demonstrably wrong. There are other terms involved; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity corrected Newtonian gravitation.
Even if there were no relativistic drifts, gravity would not be a fact, and it is not a fact. Technically, it could be an extremely miniscule coincidence (less likely than finding a specific particle in the entire universe) of random movement. Science does not do facts, and assertions like this is what allows people to obfuscate evolution as a mere theory.
Something being a fact just means that it is observeble, noting more nothing less. Gravity is a fact, or dont you observe it every day?
short note book for what scientist mean: fact - observeble theory - compilation of facts, predictions and explainations to facts (supported by evidence, ofc)
On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote: About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing...
What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist?
Asked and answered. Gravity is a verifiable fact: matter attracts matter. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all matter attracts matter with a force in inverse proportion to the square of the distance and in direct proportion of the two masses, with a constant of proportionality G.
And this is demonstrably wrong. There are other terms involved; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity corrected Newtonian gravitation.
Even if there were no relativistic drifts, gravity would not be a fact, and it is not a fact. Technically, it could be an extremely miniscule coincidence (less likely than finding a specific particle in the entire universe) of random movement. Science does not do facts, and assertions like this is what allows people to obfuscate evolution as a mere theory.
Something being a fact just means that it is observeble, noting more nothing less. Gravity is a fact, or dont you observe it every day?
short note book for what scientist mean: fact - observeble theory - compilation of facts, predictions and explainations to facts (supported by evidence, ofc)
gravity is not a fact, why do you discuss things you are absolutely ignorant off.
Actually if we get really anal about gravity which was considered a law, it has proven to be a flawed concept since newer theories speak more of a curvature in space rather than an invisible attraction force.
On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote: About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing...
What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist?
Asked and answered. Gravity is a verifiable fact: matter attracts matter. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all matter attracts matter with a force in inverse proportion to the square of the distance and in direct proportion of the two masses, with a constant of proportionality G.
And this is demonstrably wrong. There are other terms involved; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity corrected Newtonian gravitation.
Even if there were no relativistic drifts, gravity would not be a fact, and it is not a fact. Technically, it could be an extremely miniscule coincidence (less likely than finding a specific particle in the entire universe) of random movement. Science does not do facts, and assertions like this is what allows people to obfuscate evolution as a mere theory.
Something being a fact just means that it is observeble, noting more nothing less. Gravity is a fact, or dont you observe it every day?
short note book for what scientist mean: fact - observeble theory - compilation of facts, predictions and explainations to facts (supported by evidence, ofc)
gravity is not a fact, why do you discuss things you are absolutely ignorant off.
Actually if we get really anal about gravity which was considered a law, it has proven to be a flawed concept since newer theories speak more of a curvature in space rather than an invisible attraction force.
It is time to get anal here! First of in order to even try to make a law of a phenonomen you have to be able to repedatly observe the object and thus it becomes a fact (in the scientific sense, in contrary to philosoficly).
I can give you that I might have used the term gravity a bit loosely, I should have said "it is a fact that objects accelerates towards the ground when u drop them (on earth)".
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
This is pretty ridiculous, I find Evolution to be as fact as anything else.... But it will always be a theory... Gravity and Friction will always be theories too... The problem isn't that it's a theory, the problem is that people don't know what a tried and tested scientific theory really is.
This isn't to say that our theories are perfected, and they will certainly change as information is discovered and understood. This does not mean that I don't believe in gravity. This works the same way for evolution.
Anyway, I hope I can see the movie somehow online even if some it doesn't find distribution in the US
On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote: About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing...
What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist?
Asked and answered. Gravity is a verifiable fact: matter attracts matter. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all matter attracts matter with a force in inverse proportion to the square of the distance and in direct proportion of the two masses, with a constant of proportionality G.
And this is demonstrably wrong. There are other terms involved; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity corrected Newtonian gravitation.
Even if there were no relativistic drifts, gravity would not be a fact, and it is not a fact. Technically, it could be an extremely miniscule coincidence (less likely than finding a specific particle in the entire universe) of random movement. Science does not do facts, and assertions like this is what allows people to obfuscate evolution as a mere theory.
Something being a fact just means that it is observeble, noting more nothing less. Gravity is a fact, or dont you observe it every day?
short note book for what scientist mean: fact - observeble theory - compilation of facts, predictions and explainations to facts (supported by evidence, ofc)
lol... Gravity has been observed? Really you discovered the theorized Graviton? That's a pretty amazing discovery... Gravity has not been directly observed... The effects of gravity have been observed. Last I checked the Graviton had not been observed...
On September 14 2009 05:17 3 Lions wrote: I'm Christian and I don't believe in evolution.
But I see absolutely no problem with showing this movie in theaters...
Look, I understand why people have views like this...I do. But to be frank, saying you don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe that the sun is the center of our solar system...
I don't mean to be insulting, in fact I think its just a lack of knowlege that causes this (im not saying ur un-educated). No one is required to learn the theory of evolution, and if you are a believer in creation, why would you ever bother?
Another point I'd like to make... Is to attempt to strike down the idea that you you cannot have both evolution AND creation. Just because evolution exists, does not destroy creation theory. So God created all things... Why can't he have given them all the ability to evolve? The only reason that isn't in the bible (new or old testament) is because the science didn't exist yet... I can't say much about the old testament... but please remember that the new testament was not given to us in a beam of holy light from God, but that it was compiled and written by of large group of old men in Rome. There were some scripts and scrolls it is based off of, including peices of the gospels (not even writting by them themselves), but it was, in fact, edited, 'censored' so to speak, by this group (i forget what they were called at the time).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing early Catholisism (and hence all Christianity), I'm merely stating facts. Just because the new testament isn't 1st hand from Jesus or God, does not mean they do not exist.
the reason evolution isnt in the bible is because the Bible isnt "the perfect word of god" or whatever the hell the evangelicals want to call it. Its just a book of stories.....and quite foolish stories.
On September 14 2009 05:17 3 Lions wrote: I'm Christian and I don't believe in evolution.
But I see absolutely no problem with showing this movie in theaters...
Look, I understand why people have views like this...I do. But to be frank, saying you don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe that the sun is the center of our solar system...
I don't mean to be insulting, in fact I think its just a lack of knowlege that causes this (im not saying ur un-educated). No one is required to learn the theory of evolution, and if you are a believer in creation, why would you ever bother?
Another point I'd like to make... Is to attempt to strike down the idea that you you cannot have both evolution AND creation. Just because evolution exists, does not destroy creation theory. So God created all things... Why can't he have given them all the ability to evolve? The only reason that isn't in the bible (new or old testament) is because the science didn't exist yet... I can't say much about the old testament... but please remember that the new testament was not given to us in a beam of holy light from God, but that it was compiled and written by of large group of old men in Rome. There were some scripts and scrolls it is based off of, including peices of the gospels (not even writting by them themselves), but it was, in fact, edited, 'censored' so to speak, by this group (i forget what they were called at the time).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing early Catholisism (and hence all Christianity), I'm merely stating facts. Just because the new testament isn't 1st hand from Jesus or God, does not mean they do not exist.
the reason evolution isnt in the bible is because the Bible isnt "the perfect word of god" or whatever the hell the evangelicals want to call it. Its just a book of stories.....and quite foolish stories.
Well, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a lot of good in the bible, and while it has been used for bad things, it has also been an excellent guide for generations of people. It is foolish to believe anything blindly and absolutely, but it doesn't make it foolish.
On September 14 2009 04:58 Klive5ive wrote: Paul Bettany was on the Andrew Marr show this morning and said himself that this is nothing to do with Evolution not being liked; it's just that Americans aren't keen on this genre of movie and that's what is stalling the film being played.
Still, if a film is doing that well/generating that much hype I'd expect it'd at least get picked up for limited release. I mean, a shitload of films within this genre (that seemed a lot less interesting) have been picked up over the years and have done well. I can see why this would be a factor, but I doubt it's the whole reason.
People who don't believe in evolution are retarded....and this is coming from a christian with my whole family also being christian and believing in evolution and that includes 3 lutheran ministers.
On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote: About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing...
What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist?
Asked and answered. Gravity is a verifiable fact: matter attracts matter. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all matter attracts matter with a force in inverse proportion to the square of the distance and in direct proportion of the two masses, with a constant of proportionality G.
And this is demonstrably wrong. There are other terms involved; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity corrected Newtonian gravitation.
Even if there were no relativistic drifts, gravity would not be a fact, and it is not a fact. Technically, it could be an extremely miniscule coincidence (less likely than finding a specific particle in the entire universe) of random movement. Science does not do facts, and assertions like this is what allows people to obfuscate evolution as a mere theory.
Something being a fact just means that it is observeble, noting more nothing less. Gravity is a fact, or dont you observe it every day?
short note book for what scientist mean: fact - observeble theory - compilation of facts, predictions and explainations to facts (supported by evidence, ofc)
gravity is not a fact, why do you discuss things you are absolutely ignorant off.
Actually if we get really anal about gravity which was considered a law, it has proven to be a flawed concept since newer theories speak more of a curvature in space rather than an invisible attraction force.
gravity is a fact, its observable that matter attracts matter. the theories related to gravity try to explain how and why it works.
and you'll note that while gravity was "wrong" (not really), the revisions to it are so minor that they dont really apply in everyday life. So if anyone is out there hoping we suddenly come up with evidence that evolution is wrong....
On September 14 2009 03:25 uNiGNoRe wrote: I don't see how you can "believe" in evolution. It's a fact... I don't "believe" that earth isn't flat, I know it.
Because Evolution is a theory. Theory in scientific terms implies a hypothesis. Hypotheses can ONLY be proved wrong, they can NEVER be proven right, according to the science world.
On September 14 2009 03:35 aRod wrote: I always laugh at people who label evolution a theory. Evolution has been objectively observed and verified to occur in bacterial species (genetic drift occuring in bacterial populations). Evolution no longer fits the definition of a theory.
What if God is just creating different bacteria and we're watching it happen?
wow are you serious? i never thought of it like that... + Show Spoiler +
I did not read the article. Nevertheless, often people do not wish to have their most cherished beliefs challenged (all of us are like this). It's not just that dogmatic Christians refuse to consider the theory of evolution objectively, it is that they do not want to challenge the beliefs that guide their lives. Consider two analogous cases.
John was raised Catholic, and all his life he has lived by the teachings of Christ. He believes in God, that God is good, and that we ought to follow the Ten Commandments because if he doesn't he'll go to hell. So, John lives his life according to these beliefs. Darwin comes along and challenges the foundation of Christianity: maybe God didn't create the world, maybe we were evolved from the same ancestral organism. If this were true, it would mean John's whole life would've been lived under false beliefs. Psychologically: it's better to believe a lie than to feel like your whole life was lived for a lie.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
On September 14 2009 05:17 3 Lions wrote: I'm Christian and I don't believe in evolution.
But I see absolutely no problem with showing this movie in theaters...
Look, I understand why people have views like this...I do. But to be frank, saying you don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe that the sun is the center of our solar system...
I don't mean to be insulting, in fact I think its just a lack of knowlege that causes this (im not saying ur un-educated). No one is required to learn the theory of evolution, and if you are a believer in creation, why would you ever bother?
Another point I'd like to make... Is to attempt to strike down the idea that you you cannot have both evolution AND creation. Just because evolution exists, does not destroy creation theory. So God created all things... Why can't he have given them all the ability to evolve? The only reason that isn't in the bible (new or old testament) is because the science didn't exist yet... I can't say much about the old testament... but please remember that the new testament was not given to us in a beam of holy light from God, but that it was compiled and written by of large group of old men in Rome. There were some scripts and scrolls it is based off of, including peices of the gospels (not even writting by them themselves), but it was, in fact, edited, 'censored' so to speak, by this group (i forget what they were called at the time).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing early Catholisism (and hence all Christianity), I'm merely stating facts. Just because the new testament isn't 1st hand from Jesus or God, does not mean they do not exist.
the reason evolution isnt in the bible is because the Bible isnt "the perfect word of god" or whatever the hell the evangelicals want to call it. Its just a book of stories.....and quite foolish stories.
Well, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a lot of good in the bible, and while it has been used for bad things, it has also been an excellent guide for generations of people. It is foolish to believe anything blindly and absolutely, but it doesn't make it foolish.
There are quite a few dumb ass stories in the bible. Particularly the old testament. Realisticly the bible shouldnt be looked at with any more level of respect for its teaching lessons than any of the myths written prior or after. Toy Story can teach just as many life lessons as the Bible
On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote: I did not read the article. Nevertheless, often people do not wish to have their most cherished beliefs challenged (all of us are like this). It's not just that dogmatic Christians refuse to consider the theory of evolution objectively, it is that they do not want to challenge the beliefs that guide their lives. Consider two analogous cases.
John was raised Catholic, and all his life he has lived by the teachings of Christ. He believes in God, that God is good, and that we ought to follow the Ten Commandments because if he doesn't he'll go to hell. So, John lives his life according to these beliefs. Darwin comes along and challenges the foundation of Christianity: maybe God didn't create the world, maybe we were evolved from the same ancestral organism. If this were true, it would mean John's whole life would've been lived under false beliefs. Psychologically: it's better to believe a lie than to feel like your whole life was lived for a lie.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
Both those people are cowards imo. But the 2nd one does not represent what science is about at all. If people thought like that nobody would ever be able to build upon science. Science is about trying to find out the "truth" about reality. Whereas religion thinks they have already solved it.
On September 14 2009 06:45 Bebop Berserker wrote: Why is it that these threads always get derailed into the dumbest arguments. A hypothesis means its a logical conclusion based on little evidence. A theory means that it seems accurate, but hasn't had overwhelming proof in its favor vs. other theories. A law is the highest honor science can put on a hypothesis which means that logically there is NO other way things could work to the scientific community at that moment. I think besides Canada, America, and "third world" countries 85%+ believe in evolution. But i might be talking out my ass.
A law is not "higher" than a theory; It serves a different purpose. Laws generalize a body of observations, but they don't explain the "why" behind those observations.
On September 14 2009 09:04 IdrA wrote: gravity is a fact, its observable that matter attracts matter.
Not it's not. It's observable that matter moves towards matter.
~Moves in the sense of acceleration, obviously.
That gravity is, is a fact
How, Why, Where, and all the details beyond the observable facts of gravity are very much theories, and are very much -what gravity is-... This is just how science works, it's really pathetic that this isn't understood and taught in High Schools.
and Laws are just theories. Newton's Law was proved wrong by Einstien, and sometime in the future String Theory and/or Quantum Loop Theory aim to disprove Einstien. Nothing in Science is ever set in stone, and if we can add a few decimal places onto our understanding it's for the better, and not a discredit to the current understanding.
On September 14 2009 05:05 Iplaythings wrote: the hardcore believing part of america never siezes to amase... Made my night cus of the ignorance of them
No reason to be ignorant towards people who have religious beliefs. Your attitude doesn't help anyone and merely ignites opposition.
No reason to be lacking in knowledge towards people who have religious beliefs. Your attitude doesn't help anyone and merely ignites opposition...?
On September 14 2009 10:38 Motiva wrote: That gravity is, is a fact
How, Why, Where, and all the details beyond the observable facts of gravity are very much theories, and are very much -what gravity is-... This is just how science works, it's really pathetic that this isn't understood and taught in High Schools.
No, it's not. You can observe that all matter moves in such a manner that it seems there is an attraction, but saying that there is in fact an attraction is already theorizing. Gravity is very much a theory.
On September 14 2009 05:58 B00ts wrote: About this whole... "you can't prove a scientific theory" statement I keep seeing...
What about Newton's Theory of Gravity... Is gravity not proven to exist?
Asked and answered. Gravity is a verifiable fact: matter attracts matter. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation states that all matter attracts matter with a force in inverse proportion to the square of the distance and in direct proportion of the two masses, with a constant of proportionality G.
And this is demonstrably wrong. There are other terms involved; Einstein's Theory of General Relativity corrected Newtonian gravitation.
Even if there were no relativistic drifts, gravity would not be a fact, and it is not a fact. Technically, it could be an extremely miniscule coincidence (less likely than finding a specific particle in the entire universe) of random movement. Science does not do facts, and assertions like this is what allows people to obfuscate evolution as a mere theory.
Something being a fact just means that it is observeble, noting more nothing less. Gravity is a fact, or dont you observe it every day?
short note book for what scientist mean: fact - observeble theory - compilation of facts, predictions and explainations to facts (supported by evidence, ofc)
gravity is not a fact, why do you discuss things you are absolutely ignorant off.
Actually if we get really anal about gravity which was considered a law, it has proven to be a flawed concept since newer theories speak more of a curvature in space rather than an invisible attraction force.
gravity is a fact, its observable that matter attracts matter. the theories related to gravity try to explain how and why it works.
you put a smile on my face Baal you actually accused someone being absolutely ignorant. TL is a good place to learn humility.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
what garbage Classical physics still exists, and still describes our daily interactions as well as ever. QM is just another wrinkle in the fabric
The existance of QM doesnt somehow make classical physics wrong on a large scale.
On September 14 2009 05:17 3 Lions wrote: I'm Christian and I don't believe in evolution.
But I see absolutely no problem with showing this movie in theaters...
Look, I understand why people have views like this...I do. But to be frank, saying you don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe that the sun is the center of our solar system...
I don't mean to be insulting, in fact I think its just a lack of knowlege that causes this (im not saying ur un-educated). No one is required to learn the theory of evolution, and if you are a believer in creation, why would you ever bother?
Another point I'd like to make... Is to attempt to strike down the idea that you you cannot have both evolution AND creation. Just because evolution exists, does not destroy creation theory. So God created all things... Why can't he have given them all the ability to evolve? The only reason that isn't in the bible (new or old testament) is because the science didn't exist yet... I can't say much about the old testament... but please remember that the new testament was not given to us in a beam of holy light from God, but that it was compiled and written by of large group of old men in Rome. There were some scripts and scrolls it is based off of, including peices of the gospels (not even writting by them themselves), but it was, in fact, edited, 'censored' so to speak, by this group (i forget what they were called at the time).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing early Catholisism (and hence all Christianity), I'm merely stating facts. Just because the new testament isn't 1st hand from Jesus or God, does not mean they do not exist.
the reason evolution isnt in the bible is because the Bible isnt "the perfect word of god" or whatever the hell the evangelicals want to call it. Its just a book of stories.....and quite foolish stories.
Well, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a lot of good in the bible, and while it has been used for bad things, it has also been an excellent guide for generations of people. It is foolish to believe anything blindly and absolutely, but it doesn't make it foolish.
The best moral teaching there is (and one that is not at all unique to the Bible), the ethic of reciprocity, makes several appearances in the Bible. But, in the context of the Bible, it loses all meaning.
Love thy neighbor... unless he's gay, or had sex with a woman during her period, or is a witch, or is someone who does not follow YHWH but came near the place of worship, or is just one of those fucking Canaanites.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
what garbage Classical physics still exists, and still describes our daily interactions as well as ever. QM is just another wrinkle in the fabric
The existance of QM doesnt somehow make classical physics wrong on a large scale.
On September 14 2009 03:34 Weaponx3 wrote: some people dont agree with the scientific premise of evolution, it is very flawed. evolution is construied story we all accept, even though it uses alot of double speak. just beacuse something grows doesnt mean that it is evolving. and the mutation thing if you can point to one beneficial human mutation please do because every mutation isnt beneficial at all yet in fact it is quite the opposite.. but im not here to argue. i disagree on scientific basis and i think many others do as well. i just wanted to point that..
Evolution is the accepted scientific theory for the development of life on Earth -- "theory" in Science terms means a very well tested hypothesis that has time and time again shown to be true.
People who say it is "very flawed" are very uneducated in the subject.
The only reason people don't believe in evolution is because of their religious beliefs (at least the vast majority). Can you see what's wrong here?
On September 14 2009 10:38 Motiva wrote: That gravity is, is a fact
How, Why, Where, and all the details beyond the observable facts of gravity are very much theories, and are very much -what gravity is-... This is just how science works, it's really pathetic that this isn't understood and taught in High Schools.
No, it's not. You can observe that all matter moves in such a manner that it seems there is an attraction, but saying that there is in fact an attraction is already theorizing. Gravity is very much a theory.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
what garbage Classical physics still exists, and still describes our daily interactions as well as ever. QM is just another wrinkle in the fabric
The existance of QM doesnt somehow make classical physics wrong on a large scale.
True. Lack of unification doesn't mean that either classical mechanics or quantum mechanics invalidates the other... they are both useful for different types of situations.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
what garbage Classical physics still exists, and still describes our daily interactions as well as ever. QM is just another wrinkle in the fabric
The existance of QM doesnt somehow make classical physics wrong on a large scale.
True. Lack of unification doesn't mean that either classical mechanics or quantum mechanics invalidates the other... they are both useful for different types of situations.
If Mary thinks he whole life works has been for nothing then she truly didn't understand what she was working for her whole life. This is just how science works and it's pathetic that the worldview most people adapt is that of Mary. Mary in reality should rejoice and revel to have been part of such a great time in history, and in awe of the progression her field and related fields will make in the lifetime following hers. but this is just me, and in my opinion a scientists greatest moment in his life should be when his field progresses.
but even so, classical physics wasn't made obsolete by QM, if anything It just opens new doors and possibilities for the discovery of the true holy grail of physics. A Theory of Everything.
On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote: I did not read the article. Nevertheless, often people do not wish to have their most cherished beliefs challenged (all of us are like this). It's not just that dogmatic Christians refuse to consider the theory of evolution objectively, it is that they do not want to challenge the beliefs that guide their lives. Consider two analogous cases.
John was raised Catholic, and all his life he has lived by the teachings of Christ. He believes in God, that God is good, and that we ought to follow the Ten Commandments because if he doesn't he'll go to hell. So, John lives his life according to these beliefs. Darwin comes along and challenges the foundation of Christianity: maybe God didn't create the world, maybe we were evolved from the same ancestral organism. If this were true, it would mean John's whole life would've been lived under false beliefs. Psychologically: it's better to believe a lie than to feel like your whole life was lived for a lie.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
You are right that many different kinds of people face this sort of conundrum, but as others have pointed out your second example is not very good.
Classical mechanics is not a belief, it is a way of describing and attempting to predict interactions. It is useful for some things, and less useful for others. Rarely, if ever, will you find a situation where a field in science is completely invalidated. Almost everything is build on top of previous ideas. Her whole life may have been in vain because, apparently, if she is thusly affected, she has failed to become a decent scientist. Further, if I understand it correctly, quantum mechanics is useless for predicting macroscopic phenomena - perhaps a better example would be general relativity.
Also, I think it was Sadist who said they are both cowards, and I agree. This sort of behavior, while understandable and probably exhibited by many of us, should be something we try to eradicate.
(Incidentally, AFAIK NASA still uses newtonian physics for engineering and mission planning and such rather than the newer, more "correct" general relativity. General relativity and non-relativistic gravity both seem to fail on a very large scale, which has brought about suspicion of the existence of dark matter (which could salvage the theories)- though we may just have gotten everything completely wrong.)
Even if you believe in intelligent design, you really can't dispute that evolution happens. Mutations happen, and a crappy mutation gets you killed. Given these two premises (which have been proven experimentally many times over), only good mutations survive - there's nothing to do with religion there.
But just because evolution happens doesn't necessarily mean that it's the source of the plethora of species. One analogy I heard went something like this: your family owns a boat and your dad tells you he built it. As you grow up, you learn about professional boat builders and so on, and maybe you can build your own boat. Does that mean your dad didn't build the original boat? No.. it's possible he bought it from somewhere, or other people helped him build it, but it's still possible he built it. So just because evolution occurs all the time, doesn't rule out the possibility of an intelligent designer. It might be an alternate explanation, or the truth might lie somewhere in between, but the existence of evolution doesn't disprove the possibility of intelligent design.
So my view on the education point is that it's completely ridiculous not to teach evolution. It's undeniable that it occurs. Whether you think it explains the different species today is a completely separate matter.
On September 14 2009 03:12 Slaughter wrote: How is it at 40% that seems way to high, most Christians believe in evolution so it can't be that high of retards.
Your sources?
never met a single person in my church or school who didnt believe in evolution
Alright, I concede that I lack detailed knowledge about the relation between Newtonian and Quantum mechanics. As such, I concede that my example was probably not the best to illustrate my point. Nevertheless, it was just an example to illustrate a larger point. The point being a normative one. I think we ought to empathize with those who hold different views from ours (as a first step; we stop empathizing and start restraining them when they threaten to physically harm others) -- here I'm denouncing the aggressive debates (that degenerate into ad hominem flame wars) between fundamentalist Christians and dogmatic (yes, dogmatic) atheists.
I'm here advocating something like a global agnosticism. Yes, evolution is the best theory that we presently have to explain the origin of species (all species) on Earth. Yes, there are very many rational arguments against the existence of a benevolent God. Yet we must look at the status of our knowledge from a historical perspective. Each era has believed themselves to be in possession of The Final Truth. And each era has been wrong. Personally I think evolution is right and I'm agnostic about the existence of God. But, I am not intolerant or hateful towards anyone who holds a view different from mine because I understand that (a) we are always more ignorant of so much more than we know, (b) other people are just trying to make sense of this chaotic universe just as I am, (c) I can hammer out the clearest logical arguments to demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of God, and atheists and believers might still not be persuaded because more often than not we are not persuaded by reason alone.
And, I think the main reason why a debate about God cannot get off the ground is something Hume mentions: we cannot prove an empirical fact (i.e., whether or not something exists in the world) by reason (logical argumentation) alone. And since we can't empirically investigate the existence of God, we cannot show that God exists.
My religious beliefs support evolution, and science, in fact, I believe if some religion incites anyone to get into the way of science it is wrong, the purpose of religions are to teach people to pay evil with good, charity, and etc...
We should use religion to build a better world, not to let it create a wall between us and it.
On September 14 2009 10:50 armed_ wrote: Gravity is very much a theory.
EXACTLY THE SAME STATEMENT
hmmm where do i begin? Should I begin by randomly selecting two statements from our few statements and then saying they're the same statement when they're not? That's what you did. Oh, I'll put it in caps too!
Actually, Lets just striaghten this out for your poor reading skills.
1) I said: "The fact that gravity exists is a fact You Said: You can observe that all matter moves in such a manner that it seems there is an attraction"
You seem to have a problem with me saying that something exists that we know exists and calling that knowledge fact. I don't see a problem with this, This is just semantical bullshit and is totally irrelevant to the point that we agree that the workings of gravity are currently theoretical...
2) I said: "How, Why, Where, and all the details beyond the observable facts of gravity are very much theories, and are very much -what gravity is-" You said: "Gravity is very much a theory"
Looks pretty similar to me, stop trolling me.
That there is something which we humans call gravity, and it seems to be present in nature, is a fact......... I'm trying very hard to be nice, and if i'm missing something please don't use caps.
i have had a bias towards science ever since i learned about the Galileo incident now whenever some type of religion comes in to blemish science's credibility with religious talk, i can't take them seriously, because religious beliefs went against actual fact in the past that is also how i view the whole evolution ordeal "more religious talk trying to blemish scientific theory"
On September 14 2009 12:55 Motiva wrote: You seem to have a problem with me saying that something exists that we know exists and calling that knowledge fact. I don't see a problem with this, This is just semantical bullshit
It's not semantics, there's a very clear, exact boundary between factual observations and theories and you have it in the wrong place.
On September 14 2009 12:55 Motiva wrote: You seem to have a problem with me saying that something exists that we know exists and calling that knowledge fact. I don't see a problem with this, This is just semantical bullshit
It's not semantics, there's a very clear, exact boundary between factual observations and theories and you have it in the wrong place.
Explain please.
rofl sorry in a HoN game atm... anyway to make this really short... We both totally agree that gravity is a theory.
My statement doesn't say that gravity is a fact. It says that it is a that there is a phenomena in nature that occurs that we as humans call gravity. If our theory of gravity is wrong, the name of gravity doesn't change, the theory does.
Darwin made some good observations that have been extrapolated beyond his original discoveries. I'm a religious person, a Mormon, and have no problem with the idea of evolution.
Do I believe that God created the world? Yes. I think lots of religious people need to read the bible in a more open minded way and take time to actually think about what they read. To create is not to magically make something of nothing. To create is to organize existing elements in a beautiful, functional way. For every product, there is a designer that created it. For every painting, a painter, etc. I think this principle applies to natural and spiritual things like it does to synthetic man-made creations.
Now, some people took Darwin's original observations and transformed those into what I consider to be incorrect ideas. One example would be the Progressive movement. This movement holds that there are no eternal standards of right and wrong, but that like Darwin's theory of evolution, moral standards change over time as we learn more about the world around us. I don't want to lengthen this wall of text talking more about this, but I just share this to point out that not all religious people are overly concerned about the details of the creation of the planet and mankind. Some object to the extrapolations based on Darwin's work like Progressivism that reject what they believe are inspired, eternal principles.
I think that too often, people worry about the details of how the HOW and the WHY fit together. If you believe in God, you need to realize that we won't have all the answers in this life. We have enough to get by, but in general we need to walk by faith. Science worries about the HOW, religion worries about WHY. They don't contradict each other, they just answer different questions.
On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote: I did not read the article. Nevertheless, often people do not wish to have their most cherished beliefs challenged (all of us are like this). It's not just that dogmatic Christians refuse to consider the theory of evolution objectively, it is that they do not want to challenge the beliefs that guide their lives. Consider two analogous cases.
John was raised Catholic, and all his life he has lived by the teachings of Christ. He believes in God, that God is good, and that we ought to follow the Ten Commandments because if he doesn't he'll go to hell. So, John lives his life according to these beliefs. Darwin comes along and challenges the foundation of Christianity: maybe God didn't create the world, maybe we were evolved from the same ancestral organism. If this were true, it would mean John's whole life would've been lived under false beliefs. Psychologically: it's better to believe a lie than to feel like your whole life was lived for a lie.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
Unfortunately for philosophers who like to consider quantum mechanics a contradiction of newtonian mechanics, one of the first things you do in quantum mechanics is to show that statistically matter approaches newtonian behavior in larger scales. So Mary's work is perfectly valid as long as she doesn't apply it to unusual circumstances.
On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote: I did not read the article. Nevertheless, often people do not wish to have their most cherished beliefs challenged (all of us are like this). It's not just that dogmatic Christians refuse to consider the theory of evolution objectively, it is that they do not want to challenge the beliefs that guide their lives. Consider two analogous cases.
John was raised Catholic, and all his life he has lived by the teachings of Christ. He believes in God, that God is good, and that we ought to follow the Ten Commandments because if he doesn't he'll go to hell. So, John lives his life according to these beliefs. Darwin comes along and challenges the foundation of Christianity: maybe God didn't create the world, maybe we were evolved from the same ancestral organism. If this were true, it would mean John's whole life would've been lived under false beliefs. Psychologically: it's better to believe a lie than to feel like your whole life was lived for a lie.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
Why cant John believe god was the guiding hand behind the big bang/evolution/anything science discovers ?
I'm here advocating something like a global agnosticism. Yes, evolution is the best theory that we presently have to explain the origin of species (all species) on Earth.
No, evolution explains the diversity among species given that life already exists. Evolution doesnt say anything about how life began,
Yes, there are very many rational arguments against the existence of a benevolent God. Yet we must look at the status of our knowledge from a historical perspective. Each era has believed themselves to be in possession of The Final Truth. And each era has been wrong. Personally I think evolution is right and I'm agnostic about the existence of God.
Believing in god and accepting evolutions isn't mutualy exclusive, not accepting evolution just shows ignorance towards the scientific method.
The reason why they get away with this is they use the word theory in a non scientific context.
Science if not a voted upon process.
If the whole world votes on the gender of a person it does not change the person's sex.
The scientific method is act of finding what the sex that is, and in times the given processes to finding out what the sex of that given person are stuck down (that process is a logic biased process to in order to prove or create a theory) but it does not make all theories wrong.
Frankly you can't accept science in parts, you frankly need to take science as a whole, you don't like a given answer to a given problem? Use logic and prove them wrong and guess what it becomes the generally accepted answer.
To argue against science without science is not only a fallacy but can only be targeted with semantics; it's nothing but a ploy used by the blindly religious.
Want to know what's not controversial in America? How about a movie about a guy who get torchered to death biased on religious text. Hell that's not only not controversial you can bring your children to it.
Evolution as darwin describe it has many mistakes that soon will be show to all but its still very acurate and the most acureate thing we have for it so its important we all know this
Everyone do yourselves a favor and watch this video
People who accept evolution are people who would gladly accept another theory about organisms if it had more facts and basis. They will not accept it blindly.
On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote: I did not read the article. Nevertheless, often people do not wish to have their most cherished beliefs challenged (all of us are like this). It's not just that dogmatic Christians refuse to consider the theory of evolution objectively, it is that they do not want to challenge the beliefs that guide their lives. Consider two analogous cases.
John was raised Catholic, and all his life he has lived by the teachings of Christ. He believes in God, that God is good, and that we ought to follow the Ten Commandments because if he doesn't he'll go to hell. So, John lives his life according to these beliefs. Darwin comes along and challenges the foundation of Christianity: maybe God didn't create the world, maybe we were evolved from the same ancestral organism. If this were true, it would mean John's whole life would've been lived under false beliefs. Psychologically: it's better to believe a lie than to feel like your whole life was lived for a lie.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
Why cant John believe god was the guiding hand behind the big bang/evolution/anything science discovers ?
Because John is true to his faith and follows the bible closely. Or he does not read the bible at all but instead gets it pre-digested and in small easily consumable sermons from his local priest. Either way, he believes as said in the 7 Day creation myth, Man was created in God's image, before the animals and monkeys. For John to accept the theory of evolution, he would have to accept that the Bible had it backwards, and that although it claims to be a book of God's Truths, it is not. And if this is not true, then what else is the book wrong about? Either that, or he would have to get angry to get people to stop asking so many damn questions.
On September 14 2009 12:34 Zinfandel wrote: Alright, I concede that I lack detailed knowledge about the relation between Newtonian and Quantum mechanics. As such, I concede that my example was probably not the best to illustrate my point. Nevertheless, it was just an example to illustrate a larger point. The point being a normative one. I think we ought to empathize with those who hold different views from ours (as a first step; we stop empathizing and start restraining them when they threaten to physically harm others) -- here I'm denouncing the aggressive debates (that degenerate into ad hominem flame wars) between fundamentalist Christians and dogmatic (yes, dogmatic) atheists.
I'm here advocating something like a global agnosticism. Yes, evolution is the best theory that we presently have to explain the origin of species (all species) on Earth. Yes, there are very many rational arguments against the existence of a benevolent God. Yet we must look at the status of our knowledge from a historical perspective. Each era has believed themselves to be in possession of The Final Truth. And each era has been wrong. Personally I think evolution is right and I'm agnostic about the existence of God. But, I am not intolerant or hateful towards anyone who holds a view different from mine because I understand that (a) we are always more ignorant of so much more than we know, (b) other people are just trying to make sense of this chaotic universe just as I am, (c) I can hammer out the clearest logical arguments to demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of God, and atheists and believers might still not be persuaded because more often than not we are not persuaded by reason alone.
And, I think the main reason why a debate about God cannot get off the ground is something Hume mentions: we cannot prove an empirical fact (i.e., whether or not something exists in the world) by reason (logical argumentation) alone. And since we can't empirically investigate the existence of God, we cannot show that God exists.
Zinfandel, your point about Mary is absolutely right. The people who replied to you with crass and offensive comments dismissing your whole post, didn't even understand what you were saying. You were obviously talking about physics in terms of fundamental understanding of natural laws, not usefulness in engineering or other applied disciplines (including non-fundamental physics). It's true that older scientists tend to cling to old explanations when their field undergoes a Kuhnian "paradigm shift." For example, there are some old school cosmologists right now who don't subscribe to the big bang.
As for Darwinian evolution, whether or not it's true, many people who take it as undisputable fact don't realize just how utterly nihilistic it is in its implications. If Darwinian evolution AND NOTHING ELSE sufficiently explains biological life, then it is difficult to see why other human beings should be valued, why all human relations are not all at the bottom exploitative power games. Evolutionary biologists would no doubt say something about "the evolution of cooperation" or "kin selection," but that misses the point, since it merely seeks to explain why living things do exhibit what is at the surface "cooperative" behavior, but is actually in the interest of "the selfish gene." This only shows why a view of life characterized by undiluted Darwinian evolution is undesirable, but it doesn't show that it is false. The strongest empirical argument against the TRUTH of raw Darwinism, I think, is the existence of consciousness which seems incompatible with a purely mechanical view of life.
On September 14 2009 12:34 Zinfandel wrote: Alright, I concede that I lack detailed knowledge about the relation between Newtonian and Quantum mechanics. As such, I concede that my example was probably not the best to illustrate my point. Nevertheless, it was just an example to illustrate a larger point. The point being a normative one. I think we ought to empathize with those who hold different views from ours (as a first step; we stop empathizing and start restraining them when they threaten to physically harm others) -- here I'm denouncing the aggressive debates (that degenerate into ad hominem flame wars) between fundamentalist Christians and dogmatic (yes, dogmatic) atheists.
I'm here advocating something like a global agnosticism. Yes, evolution is the best theory that we presently have to explain the origin of species (all species) on Earth. Yes, there are very many rational arguments against the existence of a benevolent God. Yet we must look at the status of our knowledge from a historical perspective. Each era has believed themselves to be in possession of The Final Truth. And each era has been wrong. Personally I think evolution is right and I'm agnostic about the existence of God. But, I am not intolerant or hateful towards anyone who holds a view different from mine because I understand that (a) we are always more ignorant of so much more than we know, (b) other people are just trying to make sense of this chaotic universe just as I am, (c) I can hammer out the clearest logical arguments to demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of God, and atheists and believers might still not be persuaded because more often than not we are not persuaded by reason alone.
And, I think the main reason why a debate about God cannot get off the ground is something Hume mentions: we cannot prove an empirical fact (i.e., whether or not something exists in the world) by reason (logical argumentation) alone. And since we can't empirically investigate the existence of God, we cannot show that God exists.
Zinfandel, your point about Mary is absolutely right. The people who replied to you with crass and offensive comments dismissing your whole post, didn't even understand what you were saying. You were obviously talking about physics in terms of fundamental understanding of natural laws, not usefulness in engineering or other applied disciplines (including non-fundamental physics). It's true that older scientists tend to cling to old explanations when their field undergoes a Kuhnian "paradigm shift." For example, there are some old school cosmologists right now who don't subscribe to the big bang.
As for Darwinian evolution, whether or not it's true, many people who take it as undisputable fact don't realize just how utterly nihilistic it is in its implications. If Darwinian evolution AND NOTHING ELSE sufficiently explains biological life, then it is difficult to see why other human beings should be valued, why all human relations are not all at the bottom exploitative power games. Evolutionary biologists would no doubt say something about "the evolution of cooperation" or "kin selection," but that misses the point, since it merely seeks to explain why living things do exhibit what is at the surface "cooperative" behavior, but is actually in the interest of "the selfish gene." This only shows why a view of life characterized by undiluted Darwinian evolution is undesirable, but it doesn't show that it is false. The strongest empirical argument against the TRUTH of raw Darwinism, I think, is the existence of consciousness which seems incompatible with a purely mechanical view of life.
Having Consciousness only implies being conscious of ones surroundings. Many species exhibit this trait. Just because you can't understand other species use of space doesn't mean they do not exhibit it. Case in point, dogs sufficiently know when they are being treated unfairly. They will either shy away from humans or scare them off. Further sill chimpanzees have been known to throw rocks at villages that expand into their territory. Rocks, as in trying to start a conflict, war. Consciousness is an evolutionary trait that is becoming very apparent in most large mammals.
On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote: I did not read the article. Nevertheless, often people do not wish to have their most cherished beliefs challenged (all of us are like this). It's not just that dogmatic Christians refuse to consider the theory of evolution objectively, it is that they do not want to challenge the beliefs that guide their lives. Consider two analogous cases.
John was raised Catholic, and all his life he has lived by the teachings of Christ. He believes in God, that God is good, and that we ought to follow the Ten Commandments because if he doesn't he'll go to hell. So, John lives his life according to these beliefs. Darwin comes along and challenges the foundation of Christianity: maybe God didn't create the world, maybe we were evolved from the same ancestral organism. If this were true, it would mean John's whole life would've been lived under false beliefs. Psychologically: it's better to believe a lie than to feel like your whole life was lived for a lie.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
That's fine. However, there's a big difference.
Science needs Mary. Science needs here to make sure that quantum mechanics is actually legitimate. Her job is to do her best to break QM. Science gets better because of Mary. If she can't break QM, then it's a pretty good guess that QM's on the right track.
And here's the thing: if Mary keeps pushing past the point where her arguments against QM make sense (ie: she's clearly spouting nonsense), then Science will shun her. Science only accepts what has good evidence behind it, and Science as a process is designed to weed out nonsense. If Mary gets to the point where she's spouting nonsense, she will eventually be marginalized, discarded, and left behind while the more open minds conduct the business of Science.
There are people like Mary in Science. In the past, these people could slow down the progress of science, by trading on their respectability and so forth to get their pet notions published and accepted. This is much less likely today, but it can still happen. Yet despite all of this, Science Marches On. Because worst case, Mary will eventually die, her respectability will be challenged, and her pet notions will be discredited and discarded by people doing good Science.
Catholicism doesn't get better because of John. It just gets more insular, introverted, and divorced from reality. It will never shun John if he resorts to nonsensical arguments.
BTW, Catholicism, or at least Roman Catholics, accept evolution.
On September 14 2009 05:05 Iplaythings wrote: the hardcore believing part of america never siezes to amase... Made my night cus of the ignorance of them
No reason to be ignorant towards people who have religious beliefs. Your attitude doesn't help anyone and merely ignites opposition.
No reason to be lacking in knowledge towards people who have religious beliefs. Your attitude doesn't help anyone and merely ignites opposition...?
wat
No, he's right. The problem isn't religion; it's dogma. As pointed out earlier, Catholicism has no problem with evolution because it doesn't accept the Bible as completely factual.
Attacking all people of faith for the horrible views of a portion of them is not helping. Indeed, it turns the reasonable believers who might otherwise come to the defense of science away from science. Militant Atheism is no better than fundamentalists.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
what garbage Classical physics still exists, and still describes our daily interactions as well as ever. QM is just another wrinkle in the fabric
The existance of QM doesnt somehow make classical physics wrong on a large scale.
True. Lack of unification doesn't mean that either classical mechanics or quantum mechanics invalidates the other... they are both useful for different types of situations.
Classical mechanics are wrong; this is undeniable, as it is a verifiable fact. But what they are is good enough for a lot of things, which is why they are still taught and used.
On September 14 2009 12:03 starfries wrote: So my view on the education point is that it's completely ridiculous not to teach evolution. It's undeniable that it occurs. Whether you think it explains the different species today is a completely separate matter.
I hate to use this word, but that is appeasement, not science.
The problem with Intelligent Design is that it is not science. It has been ruled in the court of science itself to not be science, and thanks to Kitsmiller vs. Dover Area School District, it has been ruled to not be science in a court of law. It doesn't play by the rules of science and it doesn't have to go through the rigor that anything else in science textbooks had to go through to get into those textbooks.
Yes, evolution is a verified fact. But it is also a theory, one with mountains of supporting evidence, and little if anything against it. It is better supported than General Relativity (due to problems with it interfacing with Quantum Mechanics).
Saying that it's a "completely separate matter" to say that the Theory of Evolution is valid is absolutely untrue. The Theory of Evolution was valid long before it was ever actually witnessed in the laboratory. The theory fit with known facts. It made testible predictions which were later tested and confirmed. It survived the discovery of DNA as the source of genetic material in the cell; this one discovery had a great shot at overturning evolution. Yet, it did not; it confirmed evolution yet again.
Physiologically, just by dissecting Chimpanzees, Humans, and Gorillas, you can determine that Humans are more closely related to Chimps than Gorillas. This was discovered by a Christian Creationist scientist. You can confirm this by looking at the archeological evidence, the various intermediate species that have been discovered. You can confirm it again through genetic testing.
The Theory of Evolution is considered the unifying theory of Biology because it links all of the disciplines. Archeology confirms links that physical biology does, which is again confirmed in genetics, which is again confirmed in embryology and so on.
And you think it is a "completely separate matter." The actual scientists who spend their lives doing this stuff don't. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. Just as nothing in chemistry makes sense except in light of atomic theory (elements, elemental periodicity, etc, all are verified facts, but atomic theory is what explains why they are as they are).
On September 14 2009 13:38 0neder wrote: One example would be the Progressive movement. This movement holds that there are no eternal standards of right and wrong, but that like Darwin's theory of evolution, moral standards change over time as we learn more about the world around us.
Note: off-topic:
First of all, Aristotle was probably the first documented instance of having moral standards change over time, or rather, having them be applicable to the situation rather than (as Plato suggested) moral absolutes that were inflexible and blind to the particular situation. I'm pretty sure he was not part of this "Progressive movement" you are referring to.
Second, what you're talking about isn't a "Progressive movement"; you're talking about reality. Moral standards have changed over time. The Bible says it's perfectly acceptable to keep slaves, yet we don't. The Bible says it's perfectly acceptable to treat women as second-class citizens. We don't. The Bible says that it's perfectly acceptable not to give rights to gay people (if not stone them to death or burn down their cities). We don't. So it's very clear that moral standards have changed quite a bit over time. In short, Aristotle was right.
Was it "Progressive movements" that undid all of that? Probably yes. Is society better off for it? Absolutely. Did any of it have to do with the Theory of Evolution? Hell no.
On September 14 2009 13:38 0neder wrote: I don't want to lengthen this wall of text talking more about this, but I just share this to point out that not all religious people are overly concerned about the details of the creation of the planet and mankind.
Yes, I've heard this view before. And it's a load of hogwash.
The basic idea is that the Theory of Evolution undermines the inerrancy of the Bible, and therefore undermines other parts of the Bible. Specifically, the various moral proscriptions. Therefore, people who accept evolution are more likely to... what exactly?
That's where it gets into a load of crap. I'm willing to say that accepting evolution makes it a bit harder to hold on to one's faith as a whole. However, this argument basically only works if you believe that the only way to live a moral life is to do as the Bible teaches.
Tough. The point of tolerance is to accept that other people have different ideas about morality. And unless those particular morals are especially repugnant or infringe on the reasonable freedoms of others (the various -isms), you have to accept that they have them.
You cannot have freedom of religion unless you have freedom from religion.
On September 14 2009 14:23 HnR)hT wrote: As for Darwinian evolution, whether or not it's true, many people who take it as undisputable fact don't realize just how utterly nihilistic it is in its implications. If Darwinian evolution AND NOTHING ELSE sufficiently explains biological life, then it is difficult to see why other human beings should be valued, why all human relations are not all at the bottom exploitative power games. Evolutionary biologists would no doubt say something about "the evolution of cooperation" or "kin selection," but that misses the point, since it merely seeks to explain why living things do exhibit what is at the surface "cooperative" behavior, but is actually in the interest of "the selfish gene." This only shows why a view of life characterized by undiluted Darwinian evolution is undesirable, but it doesn't show that it is false. The strongest empirical argument against the TRUTH of raw Darwinism, I think, is the existence of consciousness which seems incompatible with a purely mechanical view of life.
The same argument, but from a different perspective. But consider this.
What is multicellular life? It is a bunch of single cells that came together to better survive. Indeed, many of these cells specialized themselves. Indeed, most cells in a multicellular being will never directly pass on their genetic information. And yet, the heart does not evolve its own gonads and try to mate with another heart.
There are many, many organisms that move in collective groups. They don't fight one another except over mating or in times of famine. And even for mating, the most important activity biologically, they usually pull their punches.
Think about the visceral reaction you and most people have to a news story of a mother killing her own children. This is generally considered unthinkable by most people. Yes, it happens, but the reaction is universal revulsion. Something is clearly wrong with the woman in question. Similarly, betrayal of significant trust is usually considered a heinous act, even when it's totally legal; expect to lose friendships over it. We all have a strong biological instinct not to kill people we know well, not to kill family members. And we, like most maternal mammals, have a strong biological instinct to protect furry, weak organisms with large eyes and a large head-to-body ratio (ooh, isn't that kitten so cute!).
These are all your instincts, built into the brain of the vast majority of species Homo Sapiens Sapiens at birth.
Under the umbrella of Evolution, one must ask: why does all of this happen? And the answer that Evolution provides is simple: because it was advantageous for survival at the time.
Cooperation is obviously therefore a survival mechanism. Thus, if you are going to promote evolution from a scientific theory to a moral law, it is clear that cooperation is a big part of that moral law. So why should other humans be valued? Because we value them; the valuation is built-in. It's firmware, overridden only under the most direct of conscious interaction. Evolution gave us that gift; if we're going to turn evolution into something sacred, why would you give it up?
(if you meant consciousness in terms of self awareness/sentience, then this article might not be relevant) \ ----
Pet Peeve: Please do not confuse Intelligent Design theory with the Christian God, sometimes I wish there was an actual name for the Christian Creator so there would be no confusion between god and God and lazy people who don't bother to capitalize on internet forums. Because i know people who believe in a god, go to sunday church, believe in the morals preached by the priest, but when questioned closely will reject most of the bible. Sorry but in that case you are a theist, and not a Christian. /rant
On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote: I did not read the article. Nevertheless, often people do not wish to have their most cherished beliefs challenged (all of us are like this). It's not just that dogmatic Christians refuse to consider the theory of evolution objectively, it is that they do not want to challenge the beliefs that guide their lives. Consider two analogous cases.
John was raised Catholic, and all his life he has lived by the teachings of Christ. He believes in God, that God is good, and that we ought to follow the Ten Commandments because if he doesn't he'll go to hell. So, John lives his life according to these beliefs. Darwin comes along and challenges the foundation of Christianity: maybe God didn't create the world, maybe we were evolved from the same ancestral organism. If this were true, it would mean John's whole life would've been lived under false beliefs. Psychologically: it's better to believe a lie than to feel like your whole life was lived for a lie.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
You are right that many different kinds of people face this sort of conundrum, but as others have pointed out your second example is not very good.
Classical mechanics is not a belief, it is a way of describing and attempting to predict interactions. It is useful for some things, and less useful for others. Rarely, if ever, will you find a situation where a field in science is completely invalidated. Almost everything is build on top of previous ideas. Her whole life may have been in vain because, apparently, if she is thusly affected, she has failed to become a decent scientist. Further, if I understand it correctly, quantum mechanics is useless for predicting macroscopic phenomena - perhaps a better example would be general relativity.
Also, I think it was Sadist who said they are both cowards, and I agree. This sort of behavior, while understandable and probably exhibited by many of us, should be something we try to eradicate.
(Incidentally, AFAIK NASA still uses newtonian physics for engineering and mission planning and such rather than the newer, more "correct" general relativity. General relativity and non-relativistic gravity both seem to fail on a very large scale, which has brought about suspicion of the existence of dark matter (which could salvage the theories)- though we may just have gotten everything completely wrong.)
GR doesn't "fail" at large scales, it fails where quantum effects are important. As for dark matter, there is a vast amount of observational and theoretical evidence for its existence SEPARATE from stellar velocity curves, etc.
On September 14 2009 14:35 Railxp wrote: Consciousness/morality might not actually be that incompatible with mechanical biology view of life: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,763,n,n
(if you meant consciousness in terms of self awareness/sentience, then this article might not be relevant) \ ----
Pet Peeve: Please do not confuse Intelligent Design theory with the Christian God, sometimes I wish there was an actual name for the Christian Creator so there would be no confusion between god and God and lazy people who don't bother to capitalize on internet forums. Because i know people who believe in a god, go to sunday church, believe in the morals preached by the priest, but when questioned closely will reject most of the bible. Sorry but in that case you are a theist, and not a Christian. /rant
On September 14 2009 14:35 Railxp wrote: Consciousness/morality might not actually be that incompatible with mechanical biology view of life: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,763,n,n
(if you meant consciousness in terms of self awareness/sentience, then this article might not be relevant) \ ----
Pet Peeve: Please do not confuse Intelligent Design theory with the Christian God, sometimes I wish there was an actual name for the Christian Creator so there would be no confusion between god and God and lazy people who don't bother to capitalize on internet forums. Because i know people who believe in a god, go to sunday church, believe in the morals preached by the priest, but when questioned closely will reject most of the bible. Sorry but in that case you are a theist, and not a Christian. /rant
Imagine this thought experiment. You are not human or even a living thing but a very advanced and smart robot who studies terrestrial life from afar. You come up with the Darwinian theory of evolution that explains how life arose and how it works. In this case, would you have ANY reason to believe that living things have something called "sentience"? No, you would apply the principle of Occam's Razor and conclude that living things are mindless zombies whose behavior, however complex it may be, is explainable purely in terms of mechanistic stimuli and genetic imperatives.
If you are going to reply to this, first make sure you understand what I am saying.
On September 14 2009 14:46 HnR)hT wrote: Imagine this thought experiment. You are not human or even a living thing but a very advanced and smart robot who studies terrestrial life from afar. You come up with the Darwinian theory of evolution that explains how life arose and how it works. In this case, would you have ANY reason to believe that living things have something called "sentience"? No, you would apply the principle of Occam's Razor and conclude that living things are mindless zombies whose behavior, however complex it may be, is explainable purely in terms of mechanistic stimuli and genetic imperatives.
If you are going to reply to this, first make sure you understand what I am saying.
1: This smart robot would be smart enough to self-analyze and determine that its own behavior, "however complex it may be, is explainable purely in terms of mechanistic stimuli and genetic programmatic imperatives." Thus it would recognize all intelligence as kindred, different from inanimate matter.
2: What is the difference between a "mindless zombie" and a "sentient being"? Do you know that chimpanzees are mindless zombies instead of sentient beings? Are you sure they're not sentient? Do you have a test for sentience? If so, then this smart robot likely also has a test for sentience. If it's really smart, it may be able to detect sentience a priori, just from studying the brain structure of a being.
3: You're assuming that sentience exists as a real, separate construct. Would a "mindless zombie" know that it's a mindless zombie?
4: You're assuming that life has no intrinsic value, despite its apparent rarity in the universe. Self-replicating processes could very easily be valued by this smart robot. It would certainly recognize the difference between living and non-living matter, as well as knowing that once living matter dies, that particular organism is dead and cannot return. That suggests a certain value to life, as opposed to non-living matter.
The problem with all of this is that it has nothing to do with the biological Theory of Evolution. Life is mechanical regardless of the veracity of this theory, just as the Earth is 4.5 billion years old regardless of the veracity of evolutionary theory. We determined both of those independent of the Theory of Evolution. So people who want to devalue life have had an excuse to do so.
don't know how this turned into a religion/evolution war but basically this:
On September 14 2009 06:01 FabledIntegral wrote: Microevolution vs macroevolution is usually the argument.
i consider myself a religious individual but it isn't to the point where i am a fanatic. with that in mind, i find it hard to believe that my ancestors (no matter how long ago it was) were bacteria (macroevolution). however, i do accept the fact that turtles on the galapagos evolved to fit their environment (microevolution) and find counterarguments to this statement to be stupid.
regardless, we should all keep our minds open, whether its conservatives rejecting all forms of evolution or scientific liberals who blindly believe in all forms of evolution (especially macroevolution).
On September 14 2009 06:01 FabledIntegral wrote: Microevolution vs macroevolution is usually the argument.
i consider myself a religious individual but it isn't to the point where i am a fanatic. with that in mind, i find it hard to believe that my ancestors (no matter how long ago it was) were bacteria (macroevolution). however, i do accept the fact that turtles on the galapagos evolved to fit their environment (microevolution) and find counterarguments to this statement to be stupid.
regardless, we should all keep our minds open, whether its conservatives rejecting all forms of evolution or scientific liberals who blindly believe in all forms of evolution (especially macroevolution).
We all share a common trait of mitochondria. Most of our cell functions remain the same. Where is the disbelief. I think micro evolution is more of a mutation based science myself so I think it still debatable.
On September 14 2009 14:33 NicolBolas wrote: The same argument, but from a different perspective. But consider this.
What is multicellular life? It is a bunch of single cells that came together to better survive. Indeed, many of these cells specialized themselves. Indeed, most cells in a multicellular being will never directly pass on their genetic information. And yet, the heart does not evolve its own gonads and try to mate with another heart.
There are many, many organisms that move in collective groups. They don't fight one another except over mating or in times of famine. And even for mating, the most important activity biologically, they usually pull their punches.
Think about the visceral reaction you and most people have to a news story of a mother killing her own children. This is generally considered unthinkable by most people. Yes, it happens, but the reaction is universal revulsion. Something is clearly wrong with the woman in question. Similarly, betrayal of significant trust is usually considered a heinous act, even when it's totally legal; expect to lose friendships over it. We all have a strong biological instinct not to kill people we know well, not to kill family members. And we, like most maternal mammals, have a strong biological instinct to protect furry, weak organisms with large eyes and a large head-to-body ratio (ooh, isn't that kitten so cute!).
These are all your instincts, built into the brain of the vast majority of species Homo Sapiens Sapiens at birth.
Under the umbrella of Evolution, one must ask: why does all of this happen? And the answer that Evolution provides is simple: because it was advantageous for survival at the time.
Cooperation is obviously therefore a survival mechanism. Thus, if you are going to promote evolution from a scientific theory to a moral law, it is clear that cooperation is a big part of that moral law. So why should other humans be valued? Because we value them; the valuation is built-in. It's firmware, overridden only under the most direct of conscious interaction. Evolution gave us that gift; if we're going to turn evolution into something sacred, why would you give it up?
Consider this: if you can rob a bank and get away with it, the only thing stopping you is your mechanically evolved instinct of right and wrong.
If you are a 100% intellectually principled believer in Darwinism, you can tell yourself that your feelings of "right and wrong," having no higher source, are merely the results of purposeless chemical processes over billions of years and THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG with overriding such instincts. You can then "overcome" your moral instinct the same way you overcome an irrational fear: the thinking part of your brain takes charge and enables you to act contrary to your instinct.
Your aversion to cheating people whenever you can get away with it is then, in principle, no different to a shy person's aversion to social situations: if you can overcome your innate tendencies and thereby improve your status, there is no rational reason not to. If you have a lot of willpower and your worldview is based on Darwinism, then you can cheat other people at will without feeling bad about it.
The only rational reason to treat people fairly is a "prisoner dilemma" type of consideration about your own interests, which is an example of an exploitative power game par exellence.
On September 14 2009 14:46 HnR)hT wrote: Imagine this thought experiment. You are not human or even a living thing but a very advanced and smart robot who studies terrestrial life from afar. You come up with the Darwinian theory of evolution that explains how life arose and how it works. In this case, would you have ANY reason to believe that living things have something called "sentience"? No, you would apply the principle of Occam's Razor and conclude that living things are mindless zombies whose behavior, however complex it may be, is explainable purely in terms of mechanistic stimuli and genetic imperatives.
If you are going to reply to this, first make sure you understand what I am saying.
1: This smart robot would be smart enough to self-analyze and determine that its own behavior, "however complex it may be, is explainable purely in terms of mechanistic stimuli and genetic programmatic imperatives." Thus it would recognize all intelligence as kindred, different from inanimate matter.
This is a straw man. The robot needn't be "intelligent" in the sense that human beings are. It could simply be an automaton programmed to study terrestrial life and come up with a theory to explain it -- perhaps with the aid of an inbuilt Bayesian decision-making algorithm. Furthermore, your claim that artificial intelligence is similar in kind or "kindred" to human and animal intelligence is extremely controversial. But even if it were granted, see above.
2: What is the difference between a "mindless zombie" and a "sentient being"? Do you know that chimpanzees are mindless zombies instead of sentient beings? Are you sure they're not sentient? Do you have a test for sentience? If so, then this smart robot likely also has a test for sentience. If it's really smart, it may be able to detect sentience a priori, just from studying the brain structure of a being.
Obviously, I can't know with a 100% certainty that chimpanzees are sentient beings. But I believe that it is almost definitely the case. The difference between me and the automaton in the example above is that I myself am a sentient being, so I recognize that such a thing as consciousness exists in living things. But the robot would have no way of verifying that crucial data point.
CONSCIOUSNESS CANNOT BE LOGICALLY DEDUCED FROM EXTERNAL OBSERVATION. This seems like such an obvious point that I can't imagine how anyone could seriously challenge it...
3: You're assuming that sentience exists as a real, separate construct. Would a "mindless zombie" know that it's a mindless zombie?
Yes I am, and I'm basing that assumption on my personal experience . A zombie wouldn't know that it's a mindless zombie, since it can't "know" anything in the sense that humans can know things.
4: You're assuming that life has no intrinsic value, despite its apparent rarity in the universe. Self-replicating processes could very easily be valued by this smart robot. It would certainly recognize the difference between living and non-living matter, as well as knowing that once living matter dies, that particular organism is dead and cannot return. That suggests a certain value to life, as opposed to non-living matter.
So? Firstly, ununquadium is also rare in the universe, but I don't equate life with ununquadium. Secondly, a robot doesn't make value judgements, it just attempts to give an accurate description. Thirdly, stars also "die" after they reach the end of their fusion cycle. I don't equate life with stars. Finally, I say nothing about "value" in the above post; you are conflating two different points I've made about Darwinian evolution.
The problem with all of this is that it has nothing to do with the biological Theory of Evolution. Life is mechanical regardless of the veracity of this theory, just as the Earth is 4.5 billion years old regardless of the veracity of evolutionary theory. We determined both of those independent of the Theory of Evolution. So people who want to devalue life have had an excuse to do so.
Once again, I say nothing about value in the above post, so this is completely beside the point.
I think the trick of interacting with religion is the same one that should be used with everything else, disregard the bad and use/learn the good.
I feel sorry for all of the people who were brought up with strict religion, because they now have these conflicting beliefs to blend with. I don't think the Bible is necessary to have good morals anymore.
I read the first ~20 pages of the bible and it seemed to be about ownership and control. I basically treated it just like a book.
"all these trees, rocks, mountains, animals are yours etc" uhhh no. (also the Noah/flood bit was just rofl bad.)
LOL, what about all the other countless stupid religious films. This goes against freedom of speech, to the companies who are scared to take a risk on a controversial film; FUCK YOU. You can pump out trashy pop (comedy) films all year that are just as much of a risk financially. Worst cop out attempt and biased scape goat reason I've ever heard.
On September 14 2009 15:13 HnR)hT wrote: Consider this: if you can rob a bank and get away with it, the only thing stopping you is your mechanically evolved instinct of right and wrong.
If you are a 100% intellectually principled believer in Darwinism, you can tell yourself that your feelings of "right and wrong," having no higher source, are merely the results of purposeless chemical processes over billions of years and THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG with overriding such instincts.
Again, that's not what evolution says, if you're going to posit it as a moral law. Evolution created those instincts! If you accept evolution as a moral law, then clearly listening to your instincts is one of the parts of that moral law. The "purposelessness" of your body's mechanical processes have nothing to do with evolution.
This is an argument based on the assumption that people must have a higher authority mandating a moral law in order to behave morally. That without such a thing, people would be immoral.
This is nonsense. Reality bears this out. Atheists are no less moral than those who believe that moral laws are absolute and come from God. Indeed, there's some evidence that Atheists are more moral on average than theists, as the crime rate in countries with more atheism tends to be lower than in countries with more theism.
People who make this argument are simply rationalizing an anti-social choice they've already decided to make. They're using the facts to justify what they already want to do, not following the fact to where they lead.
The human mind's ability to rationalize its own shortcomings is infinite.
On September 14 2009 15:13 HnR)hT wrote: The only rational reason to treat people fairly is a "prisoner dilemma" type of consideration about your own interests, which is an example of an exploitative power game par exellence.
Perhaps, but thanks to evolution, people do not act rationally.
1: This smart robot would be smart enough to self-analyze and determine that its own behavior, "however complex it may be, is explainable purely in terms of mechanistic stimuli and genetic programmatic imperatives." Thus it would recognize all intelligence as kindred, different from inanimate matter.
This is a straw man. The robot needn't be "intelligent" in the sense that human beings are. It could simply be an automaton programmed to study terrestrial life and come up with a theory to explain it. Furthermore, your claim that artificial intelligence is similar in kind or "kindred" to human and animal intelligence is extremely controversial. But even if it were granted, see above.
If it's just an automaton cataloging the behavior of chemicals, what does it matter what it classifies things as? All that matters is what thinking beings catalog them as.
Does it have some particular meaning for you if an unthinking robot catalogs life as a series of self-replicating chemical reactions who's only purpose is to perpetuate itself? Does that remove the dignity of having evolved your way into being a member of an intelligent, civilized being? Does that give you license to act in an anti-social way?
If so, those are choices that you choose to make, not that the facts make for you. These are value judgments you place on the facts, because you value having an innate purpose and a higher moral law than what your human reason provides.
Science is knowledge. Knowledge itself is never dangerous; it's what you choose to do with it that is or is not dangerous.
2: What is the difference between a "mindless zombie" and a "sentient being"? Do you know that chimpanzees are mindless zombies instead of sentient beings? Are you sure they're not sentient? Do you have a test for sentience? If so, then this smart robot likely also has a test for sentience. If it's really smart, it may be able to detect sentience a priori, just from studying the brain structure of a being.
Obviously, I can't know with a 100% certainty that chimpanzees are sentient beings. But I believe that it is almost definitely the case. The difference between me and the automaton in the example above is that I myself am a sentient being, so I recognize that such a thing as consciousness exists in living things. But the robot would have no way of verifying that crucial data point.
Why would the robot be incapable of detecting sentience? If you can believe (presumably, for real reasons) that chimps are sentient beings, why can't the robot detect this? Why can the robot tell if a being has consciousness?
3: You're assuming that sentience exists as a real, separate construct. Would a "mindless zombie" know that it's a mindless zombie?
Yes I am, and I'm basing that assumption on my personal experience . A zombie wouldn't know that it's a mindless zombie, since it can't "know" anything in the sense that humans can know things.
That's the point. You're basing all of this on an assumption that you posses a fairly il-defined quality that other animals lack. This binary notion of sentience, where a creature can be determined to have sentience in full or no sentience at all, may well be a fiction. You do not know that.
The point I'm making is that everything with some form of brain organ may have a degree of consciousness. We humans behave according to certain particular norms, as do other brain-having organisms. Other brain-having organisms have been shown to consciously override instincts in some instances. We just may be better at it than they are.
The problem with all of this is that it has nothing to do with the biological Theory of Evolution. Life is mechanical regardless of the veracity of this theory, just as the Earth is 4.5 billion years old regardless of the veracity of evolutionary theory. We determined both of those independent of the Theory of Evolution. So people who want to devalue life have had an excuse to do so.
Once again, I say nothing about value in the above post, so this is completely beside the point.
You missed the important part of it. The fact that it has nothing to do with the biological Theory of Evolution. Even if it is overturned, it is an undeniable fact that all life as we know it are pure mechanical chemical processes.
On September 14 2009 14:33 NicolBolas wrote: The same argument, but from a different perspective. But consider this.
What is multicellular life? It is a bunch of single cells that came together to better survive. Indeed, many of these cells specialized themselves. Indeed, most cells in a multicellular being will never directly pass on their genetic information. And yet, the heart does not evolve its own gonads and try to mate with another heart.
There are many, many organisms that move in collective groups. They don't fight one another except over mating or in times of famine. And even for mating, the most important activity biologically, they usually pull their punches.
Think about the visceral reaction you and most people have to a news story of a mother killing her own children. This is generally considered unthinkable by most people. Yes, it happens, but the reaction is universal revulsion. Something is clearly wrong with the woman in question. Similarly, betrayal of significant trust is usually considered a heinous act, even when it's totally legal; expect to lose friendships over it. We all have a strong biological instinct not to kill people we know well, not to kill family members. And we, like most maternal mammals, have a strong biological instinct to protect furry, weak organisms with large eyes and a large head-to-body ratio (ooh, isn't that kitten so cute!).
These are all your instincts, built into the brain of the vast majority of species Homo Sapiens Sapiens at birth.
Under the umbrella of Evolution, one must ask: why does all of this happen? And the answer that Evolution provides is simple: because it was advantageous for survival at the time.
Cooperation is obviously therefore a survival mechanism. Thus, if you are going to promote evolution from a scientific theory to a moral law, it is clear that cooperation is a big part of that moral law. So why should other humans be valued? Because we value them; the valuation is built-in. It's firmware, overridden only under the most direct of conscious interaction. Evolution gave us that gift; if we're going to turn evolution into something sacred, why would you give it up?
Consider this: if you can rob a bank and get away with it, the only thing stopping you is your mechanically evolved instinct of right and wrong.
If you are a 100% intellectually principled believer in Darwinism, you can tell yourself that your feelings of "right and wrong," having no higher source, are merely the results of purposeless chemical processes over billions of years and THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG with overriding such instincts. You can then "overcome" your moral instinct the same way you overcome an irrational fear: the thinking part of your brain takes charge and enables you to act contrary to your instinct.
No this right and wrong comes from being a community species and if everyone started robbing banks and got away with it then society would collapse. Hence people act towards the progress of society, nice straw man btw. Darwinism doesnt exist anyways it is just a word that creationsims have started to use to redicule people who accept evolution...
On September 14 2009 15:13 HnR)hT wrote: Consider this: if you can rob a bank and get away with it, the only thing stopping you is your mechanically evolved instinct of right and wrong.
If you are a 100% intellectually principled believer in Darwinism, you can tell yourself that your feelings of "right and wrong," having no higher source, are merely the results of purposeless chemical processes over billions of years and THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG with overriding such instincts.
Again, that's not what evolution says, if you're going to posit it as a moral law. Evolution created those instincts! If you accept evolution as a moral law, then clearly listening to your instincts is one of the parts of that moral law. The "purposelessness" of your body's mechanical processes have nothing to do with evolution.
To me, the concept of "evolution as a moral law" makes absolutely zero sense, and I'm beginning to doubt that you understand what evolution actually says. Biological evolution can tell you HOW CERTAIN BEHAVIORS CAME ABOUT. That's it. You can't derive an ought from an is, and evolution is only about the "is."
This is an argument based on the assumption that people must have a higher authority mandating a moral law in order to behave morally. That without such a thing, people would be immoral. This is nonsense. Reality bears this out. Atheists are no less moral than those who believe that moral laws are absolute and come from God. Indeed, there's some evidence that Atheists are more moral on average than theists, as the crime rate in countries with more atheism tends to be lower than in countries with more theism.
Once again, I'm sorry but this is not even close to what my post says. Obviously, it is undeniable that people behave morally all the time. The trouble is, within the framework of Darwinism they have NO RATIONAL REASON to behave morally if they can individually materially benefit from behaving imorally.
People who make this argument are simply rationalizing an anti-social choice they've already decided to make. They're using the facts to justify what they already want to do, not following the fact to where they lead.
This is totally beside the point, you don't refute an argument by attacking the motivations of those who make it (these people are just trying to justify their immoral behavior, etc.).
2: What is the difference between a "mindless zombie" and a "sentient being"? Do you know that chimpanzees are mindless zombies instead of sentient beings? Are you sure they're not sentient? Do you have a test for sentience? If so, then this smart robot likely also has a test for sentience. If it's really smart, it may be able to detect sentience a priori, just from studying the brain structure of a being.
Obviously, I can't know with a 100% certainty that chimpanzees are sentient beings. But I believe that it is almost definitely the case. The difference between me and the automaton in the example above is that I myself am a sentient being, so I recognize that such a thing as consciousness exists in living things. But the robot would have no way of verifying that crucial data point.
Why would the robot be incapable of detecting sentience? If you can believe (presumably, for real reasons) that chimps are sentient beings, why can't the robot detect this? Why can the robot tell if a being has consciousness?
YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY DEDUCE THE EXISTENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS FROM EXTERNAL OBSERVATION. This point seems to me to be so trivial, that I can't understand how anyone can possibly challenge it. The robot is itself is a non-conscious material object, and it has no way of "knowing" (I'm using the term loosely here) that earthly beings are conscious. Humans, on the other hand, do know from primary experience that they are conscious, and use that to infer (not deduce, strictly speaking) that others are conscious as well.
3: You're assuming that sentience exists as a real, separate construct. Would a "mindless zombie" know that it's a mindless zombie?
Yes I am, and I'm basing that assumption on my personal experience . A zombie wouldn't know that it's a mindless zombie, since it can't "know" anything in the sense that humans can know things.
That's the point. You're basing all of this on an assumption that you posses a fairly il-defined quality that other animals lack. This binary notion of sentience, where a creature can be determined to have sentience in full or no sentience at all, may well be a fiction. You do not know that.
Once again, you seem to be badly misreading what I said. I said that it is almost definitely true that other animals are conscious. Furthermore, just because the concept of consciousness or sentience is ill-defined, it does not necessarily follow that it doesn't describe underlying objective reality.
The point I'm making is that everything with some form of brain organ may have a degree of consciousness. We humans behave according to certain particular norms, as do other brain-having organisms. Other brain-having organisms have been shown to consciously override instincts in some instances. We just may be better at it than they are.
True, but there is no way for a mindless pre-programmed automaton to know any of this, since it has external observation alone to construct its model for biological life.
The problem with all of this is that it has nothing to do with the biological Theory of Evolution. Life is mechanical regardless of the veracity of this theory, just as the Earth is 4.5 billion years old regardless of the veracity of evolutionary theory. We determined both of those independent of the Theory of Evolution. So people who want to devalue life have had an excuse to do so.
Once again, I say nothing about value in the above post, so this is completely beside the point.
You missed the important part of it. The fact that it has nothing to do with the biological Theory of Evolution. Even if it is overturned, it is an undeniable fact that all life as we know it are pure mechanical chemical processes.
First of all, it is not an "undeniable fact," which is the entire point. Second, Darwinian evolution is historically linked to a purely materialistic conception of life, so your statement that it has nothing to do with biological evolution is false.
I'm not going to get involved in the detailed discussion about Evolution, because I know it's not gonna get anywhere. However I'd like to point out that contrary to popular belief Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and whilst it's a probable and convincing theory, it has its share of flaws and loopholes. I personally don't believe in Darwin's theory, not necessarily because I'm a Christian, but because it does not explain the origin of matters, and they seem to confuse variation with mutation.
The natural selection is the process of DNA mutating on a rare occasions so it strengthens a creature's ability to survive, which lead to increasing the chance of reproduction. That is evolution's only way to making new creatures. The car engine itself does not run simply by process of cylinder pistons moving up and down, it requires Ignition system, spark, Compression, fuel system, Carburetor and fuel pump etc.
When you talk about living creatures, You don't understand the nature of irreducibly complex biological systems. It's about million times more complicated than of a car engine, parts of living creatures are consisted of intricate components with connecting parts that is co-linked together essential for the operation, controlled by many genes that have to act in logical sequence. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, This means all the right mutations must happen at the same time by pure chance. If you look at systems such as in cell organelles, removal of one element will cause the whole system to cease functioning. The chance of that happening is less than Lulker mutating into Zealot, less than 1 in billions.
To resolve this unexplainable matter, Darwin has conveniently applied 'infinite amount of time', and while this is not entirely impossible, how is this a not a 'theory' but a 'fact?'
And to all Christians who conveniently claim to believe in theistic evolution, please call yourself something else rather than Christian if you're going to translate every bible verses to suit your taste. I think you're a wuss. It's OK to be Christian and be laughed at. In fact, bible says on numerous occasions that you will be scoffed at for your faith.
I see the same problem with Christians endorsing homosexuality, when they see an uncomfortable verse or philosophy that conflict with political correctness, they simply translate them to the way they want and try to get in their comfort zone. I applaud Miss California Carrie Prejean for the way she confidently expressed her belief, even though it costed her crown. It's not that Christians should discriminate or hate homosexuals but rather not support the idea, which is two different things. You should still love them and care for them.
How do you explain Adam and Eve? How is formation of Eve explained? She was created out of one of Adam's ribs. God also explicitly said that he made them male and female. Not a bacteria without sex. The bible says the origin of all sin is from the first Human God has ever created, and it carries significant weight throughout the entire bible, whether Old or New Testament. Do you regard every verses in Old Testament as parables? God also said he created human beings in the image of God. Does bacteria possess the characteristics of God?
Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
Sorry to interrupt your philosophical debate, but back to the point of the thread...
There is a problem with choosing sides on a political manner for any large company, as it will alienate a large group of people for a very long time, and if it isn't cost effective, it's just a wrong business move. Let's say Warner Brothers decides to distribute it in the US. They will be alienating a huge clump of people from watching many of their movies for a while, and a single movie will never, EVER stack up to a 10% drop in sales for a company of that size.
Smaller companies might do it, but other than sharing that (long-term) risk, the bigger companies either force them to be extremely small and ineffectual (limited resources and reach) or buy them. Sure, this might seem like a perfect movie for the company, but can they make it cost effective on a large scale?
Movies that have potential for making a some millions yet aren't blockbusters are problematic because distributing them on a large scale requires infrastructure small companies don't have, and if (just like in this case) they touch a controversial issue, the big companies stand a lot to lose by being a part of it.
As for the quantum vs. classic mechanics model: if you look at the math behind quantum mechanics, try to apply it to larger and larger scales, you will see that it will become a closer and closer approximation of Newton's. If you want to add a little zest to the argument, you can say that the same applies to Relativity (low speeds instead of bigger scales). But of course, Hawking found mathematical incongruities between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, meaning only one can be right (or both of them wrong). Of course, that's why we have string theory.... but in most ways that matter, Newton got it right. The physics teacher who lived during the time of discovery of the Quantum model would probably have been more annoyed with Goedel's proof that there are an infinite number of unprovable formulas out there which are still correct (yes, someone actually proved that mathematically... and yes, he was at least somewhat crazy).
Of course, none of these things explain the four mysterious, unexplainable forces at the base of physics, which, like God, are omnipresent, unprovable, and make everything happen (the small and large atomic forces, electromagnetism and gravity). Therefor attacking physics as a very illogical religion is easy using Occam's Razor - monotheistic religions only have one such force, God's will, while physics has four, and is therefor much less probable an explanation for why things happen. The answer to this is that Physics does leave room for the existence of God (the uncertainty principle leaves a possibility for seeming impossibilities to happen, is one such room), therefor these facts are not mutually exclusive and your argument is a moot point. The question of Darwin excluding religion and vice versa is more an issue of dogma. The Catholic church accepted the fact that the world was round sometime in the 90s. Sometimes it takes a while.
Popular science rant, over. Sorry about that.
Of course, all of these are irrelevant to the thread, which is phrased in a way to bait people into philosophical debate where it is clearly a financial matter. You got me, you clever, clever troll :D
On September 14 2009 10:09 Zinfandel wrote: I did not read the article. Nevertheless, often people do not wish to have their most cherished beliefs challenged (all of us are like this). It's not just that dogmatic Christians refuse to consider the theory of evolution objectively, it is that they do not want to challenge the beliefs that guide their lives. Consider two analogous cases.
John was raised Catholic, and all his life he has lived by the teachings of Christ. He believes in God, that God is good, and that we ought to follow the Ten Commandments because if he doesn't he'll go to hell. So, John lives his life according to these beliefs. Darwin comes along and challenges the foundation of Christianity: maybe God didn't create the world, maybe we were evolved from the same ancestral organism. If this were true, it would mean John's whole life would've been lived under false beliefs. Psychologically: it's better to believe a lie than to feel like your whole life was lived for a lie.
Mary is a physicist whose whole career has been guided by Newtonian mechanics. Now comes Quantum mechanics to challenge her whole world view -- what Thomas Kuhn calls a revolution in science. Mary is nearing retirement. If she accepts the new paradigm -- Quantum mechanics -- her life's work has been falsified, superseded, or rendered obsolete. Psychologically, she faces the same issues as John. She refuses to believe the new theory, even if it's true, because believing it would be too damaging to her... what? Self? I don't know... but you get the point.
You are right that many different kinds of people face this sort of conundrum, but as others have pointed out your second example is not very good.
Classical mechanics is not a belief, it is a way of describing and attempting to predict interactions. It is useful for some things, and less useful for others. Rarely, if ever, will you find a situation where a field in science is completely invalidated. Almost everything is build on top of previous ideas. Her whole life may have been in vain because, apparently, if she is thusly affected, she has failed to become a decent scientist. Further, if I understand it correctly, quantum mechanics is useless for predicting macroscopic phenomena - perhaps a better example would be general relativity.
Also, I think it was Sadist who said they are both cowards, and I agree. This sort of behavior, while understandable and probably exhibited by many of us, should be something we try to eradicate.
(Incidentally, AFAIK NASA still uses newtonian physics for engineering and mission planning and such rather than the newer, more "correct" general relativity. General relativity and non-relativistic gravity both seem to fail on a very large scale, which has brought about suspicion of the existence of dark matter (which could salvage the theories)- though we may just have gotten everything completely wrong.)
GR doesn't "fail" at large scales, it fails where quantum effects are important. As for dark matter, there is a vast amount of observational and theoretical evidence for its existence SEPARATE from stellar velocity curves, etc.
Observational evidence? What observational evidence? As far as I know we only deduce the existence based on motion and gravitational lensing. This is indirect observational evidence based on the assumption that GR is correct. What exactly do you mean by theoretical evidence? I would imagine the only theoretical evidence is the discrepancy found when GR is used to calculate motion based on observed matter...which amounts to the same as above.
I'd be really interested to learn of additional evidence. I never said the possibility of dark matter shouldn't be investigated, but if we operate only based on observable evidence GR is wrong. This is all irrelevant to the thread, but it may be interesting to many people, because GR is often presented as being flawless (except, as you say, where quantum effects are significant) and dark matter presented as being a necessary consequence of GRs predictions.
I'd love if you PMed me for further discussion, to avoid interrupting the current discussion too much.
Unrelatedly, I'm really confused as to how you come up with the statement that consciousness is an empirical argument against evolution. I don't see why there is a problem with accepting that it might be the result of the accumulation of myriad genetic imperatives based on mechanistic stimuli (as you put it).
I don't really understand your bank robbery example either. Obviously there is an evolutionary imperative not to do things that will piss other people off, because you wind up in jail or dead, and thus unable to reproduce. Consequently we often have strong inhibitions relating to those kinds of actions, which may come up in the form of, for example, feeling sick when seeing someone seriously hurt. This is of course, before you even consider your prisoner's dilemma idea where we rationally deduce that it's not a good idea to rob the bank (why can't rational deduction also be a product of evolution). It seems so obvious so I guess I'm not fully understanding your example.
Edit: I read it again and you seem to be saying that if you accept evolution, there is no reason to behave in a moral fashion. Maybe I'm still misunderstanding, but the very fact that most people can't, or won't, override their inhibitions against theft, murder etc. seems to be evidence for what the quoted poster was saying. Yes there are rational reasons for me not to rob that bank, but assuming I can get away with it (somehow I have 100% certainty) I may still not because I am naturally inhibited.
Its kinda surprising something like this won't be distributed but something like religilous(spelling?) was allowed and even if you don't accept evolution you can allow the mans story to be told it seems so contridictory to let passion of the christ be played and not this what about aethiests and other religions that don't accept jesus as the son of god or have other beliefs and such kinda not fair to them (sorry am posting on a mobile not sure if this is fully coherent)
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: I'm not going to get involved in the detailed discussion about Evolution, because I know it's not gonna get anywhere. However I'd like to point out that contrary to popular belief Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and whilst it's a probable and convincing theory, it has its share of flaws and loopholes. I personally don't believe in Darwin's theory, not necessarily because I'm a Christian, but because it does not explain the origin of matter, and they seem to confuse variation with mutation.
Yes it is a scientific theory that explains the fact of evolution. Just like germ theory explains how we get decease or the theory of gravity explains how things fall to the ground. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of matter because it never set out to do so. The theory of gravity doesn't explain where gravity 'comes from' and the theory of plate tectonics doesn't explain how the earth was formed. Evolution doesn't even explain the origin of life, that question belongs to the field of Abiogenesis. There are no loopholes and no big gaps in the theory of evolution. Among the big scientific theories evolution is one of the first when it comes to amount of evidence.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
I agree with your conclusion but your reasoning is faulty. The vast majority of Christians don't regard the Bible as the literal word of God (in constrast to Muslims vis a vis the Koran), but the work of flawed human beings from a primitive society, attempting to transmit God's message as they best understand it. The vast majority of contemporary Christianity is not committed to the historical existence of Adam and Eve and Noah's ark, and the vast majority would outright reject the notion that God literally commanded the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites, including women and children.
On the other hand, it is undeniable that the Christian view of man is incompatible with the purely mechanistic conception of life, with its Darwinian imperatives, and that in the West, the advent of Darwinian evolution has overthrown traditional justifications for morality. One can either come up with new justifications that are compatable with Darwinism, or attempt to show that Darwinism is false (let's term these positions as belonging to the Darwinian camp and the anti-Darwinian camp). Many posters here obviously prefer the former approach while I prefer the latter (but am open to changing my mind by sufficiently compelling argumentation and evidence). So far, neither camp has largely succeeded. But the current Darwinian attempts to create a logical system of morality are exceedingly unpersuasive, and I think that the overthrow of the materialist view of life -- with the mind-body problem providing most of the evidence -- is not so unlikely.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
But the current Darwinian attempts to create a logical system of morality are exceedingly unpersuasive, and I think that the overthrow of the materialist view of life -- with the mind-body problem providing most of the evidence -- is not so unlikely.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? Why should a logical system of morality be the realm of biologists? The theory of evolution should have nothing to do with conceptions of morality (if indeed a concept of morality is really necessary). Evolution is not a worldview or a proposition as to how people should live - it only attempts to explain the genesis of life as it is today. Sorry if you've discussed this already, I seem to have missed it.
On September 14 2009 17:12 Sad[Panda] wrote: O wow threads mad derailed xD
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: I'm not going to get involved in the detailed discussion about Evolution, because I know it's not gonna get anywhere. However I'd like to point out that contrary to popular belief Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and whilst it's a probable and convincing theory, it has its share of flaws and loopholes. I personally don't believe in Darwin's theory, not necessarily because I'm a Christian, but because it does not explain the origin of matters, and they seem to confuse variation with mutation.
This is a straw man, theory > fact in scientific meaning of the words.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: The natural selection is the process of DNA mutating on a rare occasions so it strengthens a creature's ability to survive, which lead to increasing the chance of reproduction. That is evolution's only way to making new creatures. The car engine itself does not run simply by process of cylinder pistons moving up and down, it requires Ignition system, spark, Compression, fuel system, Carburetor and fuel pump etc.
1st Blatantly false, natural selection is the force that makes certain traits more probible to reproduce. Those traits may be results from mutations or differenent climate conditions etc.
2nd The anology with a enigne is a straw man because the enigne cant reproduce.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: When you talk about living creatures, You don't understand the nature of irreducibly complex biological systems. It's about million times more complicated than of a car engine, parts of living creatures are consisted of intricate components with connecting parts that is co-linked together essential for the operation, controlled by many genes that have to act in logical sequence. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, This means all the right mutations must happen at the same time by pure chance. If you look at systems such as in cell organelles, removal of one element will cause the whole system to cease functioning. The chance of that happening is less than Lulker mutating into Zealot, less than 1 in billions.
Irriducible complex in its most miss used form is straw man, how ever so far no traits has been shown to be irriducible complex.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
That's your opinion(based on faulty logic and wrong definitions), before making such statements please get some education on what evolution is and how it works.
Freyr, I overstated the case for dark matter, since it is true that all observational evidence thus far assumes that GR is correct, and that, although there are a lot of possible dark matter candidates, the only kind that was detected is massive neutrinos, which cannot make up all the dark matter which is believed to exist.
Regarding evolution, you need to reread my postings here on this subject from the last couple of pages, since if I were to elaborate I would be repeating myself. Much of your comments here show that you misread what I actually said (eg, in my robbery example I specifically stipulated that "you know you can get away with it"). However, in the very post you quote, I say this:
"One can either come up with new justifications that are compatable with Darwinism, or attempt to show that Darwinism is false (let's term these positions as belonging to the Darwinian camp and the anti-Darwinian camp)."
In other words, I explicitly define the "Darwinians" as I use it in the post above as those who are attempting to construct a theory of morality which is compatible with Darwinian evolution -- and they are emphatically not necessarily biologists (this group would include Daniel Dennett and many others).
Hi, You're right, I completely missed the detail that it had to do specifically with compatibility of Christianity and evolution. Thanks for your patience.
I still take issue with a statement you made that seems to indicate consciousness is an argument against evolution. At this point, as far as I know, we don't even do a very good job of explaining consciousness, so how could it play a significant role in any scientific theory yet? That doesn't mean it never will, only that it doesn't currently. This is not an argument against evolution as I see it, more of a "to be continued..." area.
To clarify my position, it's not as though I think evolution is absolutely the description of what has happened with Earth's biology, I just don't think the above argument is legitimate (yet?). I'd be willing to accept many explanations given evidence. (So there were these guys called the Xel'Naga...)
Sorry for the misunderstandings, and once again thanks for your patience.
The utter fatigue is now growing stronger than the insomnia, so I'm going back to bed after submitting this.
My consciousness argument, as spelled out in the robot analogy above and associated follow-up posts, is roughly like this (please note that this is a highly simplified form):
1. Darwinian evolution does not use the fact that living things have consciousness. (A robot that is completely unaware of consciousness, that observes living things from a distance, can conceivably formulate something like Darwinian evolution.)
Alternatively, I begin with the premise (which I regard as very strong) that consciousness in living things cannot be logically deduced from external observation of behavior alone. Yet Darwinian evolution follows (in principle) from external observation of life alone.
2. Therefore, consciousness seems extraneous in the purely Darwinian view of life.
3. But consciousness clearly exists.
4. Therefore, the Darwinian-evolutionary view of life becomes less plausible.
This is more of a plausibility argument than a logically airtight argument, which is the only kind possible in the absence of complete information.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: I'm not going to get involved in the detailed discussion about Evolution, because I know it's not gonna get anywhere. However I'd like to point out that contrary to popular belief Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and whilst it's a probable and convincing theory, it has its share of flaws and loopholes. I personally don't believe in Darwin's theory, not necessarily because I'm a Christian, but because it does not explain the origin of matters, and they seem to confuse variation with mutation.
This is a straw man, theory > fact in scientific meaning of the words.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: The natural selection is the process of DNA mutating on a rare occasions so it strengthens a creature's ability to survive, which lead to increasing the chance of reproduction. That is evolution's only way to making new creatures. The car engine itself does not run simply by process of cylinder pistons moving up and down, it requires Ignition system, spark, Compression, fuel system, Carburetor and fuel pump etc.
1st Blatantly false, natural selection is the force that makes certain traits more probible to reproduce. Those traits may be results from mutations or differenent climate conditions etc.
2nd The anology with a enigne is a straw man because the enigne cant reproduce.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: When you talk about living creatures, You don't understand the nature of irreducibly complex biological systems. It's about million times more complicated than of a car engine, parts of living creatures are consisted of intricate components with connecting parts that is co-linked together essential for the operation, controlled by many genes that have to act in logical sequence. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, This means all the right mutations must happen at the same time by pure chance. If you look at systems such as in cell organelles, removal of one element will cause the whole system to cease functioning. The chance of that happening is less than Lulker mutating into Zealot, less than 1 in billions.
Irriducible complex in its most miss used form is straw man, how ever so far no traits has been shown to be irriducible complex.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
That's your opinion(based on faulty logic and wrong definitions), before making such statements please get some education on what evolution is and how it works.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: I'm not going to get involved in the detailed discussion about Evolution, because I know it's not gonna get anywhere. However I'd like to point out that contrary to popular belief Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and whilst it's a probable and convincing theory, it has its share of flaws and loopholes. I personally don't believe in Darwin's theory, not necessarily because I'm a Christian, but because it does not explain the origin of matters, and they seem to confuse variation with mutation.
This is a straw man, theory > fact in scientific meaning of the words.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: The natural selection is the process of DNA mutating on a rare occasions so it strengthens a creature's ability to survive, which lead to increasing the chance of reproduction. That is evolution's only way to making new creatures. The car engine itself does not run simply by process of cylinder pistons moving up and down, it requires Ignition system, spark, Compression, fuel system, Carburetor and fuel pump etc.
1st Blatantly false, natural selection is the force that makes certain traits more probible to reproduce. Those traits may be results from mutations or differenent climate conditions etc.
2nd The anology with a enigne is a straw man because the enigne cant reproduce.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: When you talk about living creatures, You don't understand the nature of irreducibly complex biological systems. It's about million times more complicated than of a car engine, parts of living creatures are consisted of intricate components with connecting parts that is co-linked together essential for the operation, controlled by many genes that have to act in logical sequence. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, This means all the right mutations must happen at the same time by pure chance. If you look at systems such as in cell organelles, removal of one element will cause the whole system to cease functioning. The chance of that happening is less than Lulker mutating into Zealot, less than 1 in billions.
Irriducible complex in its most miss used form is straw man, how ever so far no traits has been shown to be irriducible complex.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
That's your opinion(based on faulty logic and wrong definitions), before making such statements please get some education on what evolution is and how it works.
I won't go into the debate, but how is my definition incorrect? You are the one who needs education on this matter. Natural selection is [quote] 'the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population.'
If a new species is to have new features, this require new variations. In the modern version of Darwin’s theory, these come from DNA mutations. The rate of mutation is central to evolution. Mutations are required for adaptation, and most mutations with phenotypic effects are harmful. hence why they're eliminated through natural selection. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities. If you calculate this, one in 107 x 107, or 1014. A hundred trillion. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion. What would you get for 4 mutations? 5?
I used the car engine example not to draw any comparison to reproduction, but merely to demonstrate the complexity of the composition involved.
(to HnR)hT, 1tym sort of snuck in there while I was typing)
Evolution does not require consciousness, but it doesn't require lack of it either. Evolution allows for the perpetuation of extraneous phenomena so long as they are not detrimental. Even if we agree that this extra bit of neutral information loosens the evidence for evolution just a bit (again this is all debatable anyway), I don't think it approaches being an argument against evolution, even if we restrict ourselves to discussion of plausibility.
I suppose you might argue that consciousness could interfere with natural selection, but even then this only challenges evolution after the point consciousness arose. As you point out we can't identify consciousness as a third party, so we don't know exactly when this is, but I think most would agree that it didn't happen at least for the first billion years or so of life on Earth.
It's interesting, I was wondering the other day how much modern human life interferes with the concept of natural selection. I think to a significant extent it just involves a different set of criteria for fitness.
On September 14 2009 18:10 HnR)hT wrote: The utter fatigue is now growing stronger than the insomnia, so I'm going back to bed after submitting this.
My consciousness argument, as spelled out in the robot analogy above and associated follow-up posts, is roughly like this (please note that this is a highly simplified form):
1. Darwinian evolution does not use the fact that living things have consciousness. (A robot that is completely unaware of consciousness, that observes living things from a distance, can conceivably formulate something like Darwinian evolution.)
Alternatively, I begin with the premise (which I regard as very strong) that consciousness in living things cannot be logically deduced from external observation of behavior alone. Yet Darwinian evolution follows (in principle) from external observation of life alone.
2. Therefore, consciousness seems extraneous in the purely Darwinian view of life.
3. But consciousness clearly exists.
4. Therefore, the Darwinian-evolutionary view of life becomes less plausible.
This is more of a plausibility argument than a logically airtight argument, which is the only kind possible in the absence of complete information.
^ "I begin with the premise that something I can't explain is happening because I don't understand...therefore I assert your theory is shaky without providing a suitable alternative hence confounding my position of ignorance."
You have to find a logical alternative to inform your understanding. Otherwise you're just failing to believe anything.
The problem with all of this is that religious people already have an alternative (even though it makes no sense at all). They perceive this alternative as truth and that shapes their perspective of everything else. In truth of course Evolution is a MUCH MUCH better explanation of why the world is like it is than anything else. There is NO decent alternative.
Any movie with sex, violence, drugs, or some radical political ideology is ok for general release, but film about a scientist is not? Hell, this isn't even about some highly controversial theory like those people who insist that current climate change is not severe. This is about a guy whose theories are accepted in every higher institute of learning, even across America.
Also, do any of these movie distributors not realize that 40% of the market share is still pretty big, especially considering that many seem to be reluctant to pick it up?
(I haven't had time to read the rest of the thread, so apologies for repeating anything)
On September 14 2009 18:21 1tym wrote: . The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities. If you calculate this, one in 107 x 107, or 1014. A hundred trillion. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion. What would you get for 4 mutations? 5?
Your assumptions are wrong, you are completely throwing out the natural selection aspect from you calculations. You don't have one organism with mutation x that need mutation y to progress. You have mutation x that gives advantage in natural environment, and with time will be in almost all members of the specie. Then most have mutation x, and mutation y have about the same chance to happen* as x had it is not (chance of x) * (chance of y).
*mutation y can happen before most have x, it just gets more likely as more have x.
His theory was obvious incomplete, he didnt even knew DNA, and several mecanisms that cells and etc... have that allows them to adapt before he forged it.
This discussion is so lame and a big % of everything being posted is a product of a discussion ignore people against not so ignorant people vs people who really arent ignorant, and almost all of them are not operating on the possibility of conceding ground, everyones here with the truth at the tip of their fingers and write a lot of crap =(
I read all this topic and it makes me bored...
gonna sleep, I hope you can channel this discussion into something a little productive, because right now its leading nowhere.
I don't know why there's so much rant about companies not taking the risk of releasing this movie because of a drop in their sales in the long run. I care to disagree. Do you know how much worth is the free advertisement you get from that? All this fanatical christians piqueting in front of the theaters, shouting how wrong this is... It is a well known fact that dealing with controversial content is bound to attract a lot of attention (Kinsey Reports are great example).
Edit: To the guy above me: Have you ever heard of mr. Mendel? He was living at about the same time as Darwin and he founded genetics (discovered DNA etc.). Darwin stated in his works that there is some element within the living organisms that corresponds with mutation/evolution but did not specify it. Mendel did, but it doesn't make Darwin's theory any less accurate since he wasn't dealing with the specifics, just general stuff.
Socrates said : All I know is that I KNOW NOTHING. (I would have prefered him to just say "I THINK I KNOW NOTHING " cause he can't even be sure of that...)
Nothing of what you could see in the universe can be proven as being fundamentaly true. We are just debating things we don't KNOW.
Anyway, I have no religion and I'm agnostic but my animal instinct makes me THINK there are 10000000x more chances for the theory of evolution to be true than for the creationism but both can be true potentially because some things are probably just impossible for human beings to acquire since we have just 5 senses.
One thing I prefer about science is that it's never definite and always trying to advance. Sometimes it can even refute something it had admitted before. All in science is just based on experiments and observations and science is not so stubborn as creationism is.
One thing I don't like about creationism is that it's not evolving (oops sorry for the word). It's a really easy way to think in my opinion : I can't explain the world --> I invent an entity called God and it explains it all. I think those people just think that way because it reassures them and it gives them some markers in their life without any signification.
The fact is you will probably never know the truth.
On September 14 2009 02:36 Dametri wrote: Wat Inglourious Basterds barely raises eyebrows but a movie about the life of Darwin is getting people in a tiffy? My country mystifies me sometimes.
it should mystify you always, because its so miraculous in behavior.
On September 14 2009 20:24 Manit0u wrote: I don't know why there's so much rant about companies not taking the risk of releasing this movie because of a drop in their sales in the long run. I care to disagree. Do you know how much worth is the free advertisement you get from that? All this fanatical christians piqueting in front of the theaters, shouting how wrong this is... It is a well known fact that dealing with controversial content is bound to attract a lot of attention (Kinsey Reports are great example).
Edit: To the guy above me: Have you ever heard of mr. Mendel? He was living at about the same time as Darwin and he founded genetics (discovered DNA etc.). Darwin stated in his works that there is some element within the living organisms that corresponds with mutation/evolution but did not specify it. Mendel did, but it doesn't make Darwin's theory any less accurate since he wasn't dealing with the specifics, just general stuff.
He didn't discover DNA. He discovered dominant and recessive characteristics and how they were passed on through generations. Again, he lacked the specifics because of inadequate equipment at the time. Also his research has been challenged because his results were too perfect, to the extent that would be statistically unlikely. Although if anything that makes him more impressive imo, if he worked out a theory, tested it and the results were imperfect but he was so sure his theory was right (and it was) that he changed them. He theorised that by breeding two things with the same recessive trait 1/4 of the progeny would have that trait, 1/4 wouldn't have it (even recessive) and 1/2 would have it as a recessive trait. His results showed him as being 100% right rather than discovering on average he was right.
On September 14 2009 18:24 Freyr wrote: (to HnR)hT, 1tym sort of snuck in there while I was typing)
Evolution does not require consciousness, but it doesn't require lack of it either. Evolution allows for the perpetuation of extraneous phenomena so long as they are not detrimental. Even if we agree that this extra bit of neutral information loosens the evidence for evolution just a bit (again this is all debatable anyway), I don't think it approaches being an argument against evolution, even if we restrict ourselves to discussion of plausibility.
I suppose you might argue that consciousness could interfere with natural selection, but even then this only challenges evolution after the point consciousness arose. As you point out we can't identify consciousness as a third party, so we don't know exactly when this is, but I think most would agree that it didn't happen at least for the first billion years or so of life on Earth.
It's interesting, I was wondering the other day how much modern human life interferes with the concept of natural selection. I think to a significant extent it just involves a different set of criteria for fitness.
Night.
I wonder what those criteria are though. Survival to reproductive age is almost universal in western society today, at least when compared to the situation just a couple of hundred years ago. You might imagine some form of sexual selection taking its place since there is no real threat. However since we are aware that sex leads to offspring and since there are contraceptives and abortion, even if there are characteristics that are generally considered more attractive and even if those characteristics lead to more sex for the individual it doesn't have to lead to more offspring.
I can only think of two things that would give an 'obvious' evolutionary advantage today. Genes that make their hosts want to maximize their number of offspring rather than maximize sex. And possibly genes that make us want to teach and emphasize the same values to our children.
It might just be that the the difference in cultural influences on society over long periods of time is a force much greater than that of evolution. Maybe the evolutionary pressure on us is too small and/or changes too often to amount to anything.
On September 14 2009 14:35 Railxp wrote: Consciousness/morality might not actually be that incompatible with mechanical biology view of life: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,763,n,n
(if you meant consciousness in terms of self awareness/sentience, then this article might not be relevant) \ ----
Pet Peeve: Please do not confuse Intelligent Design theory with the Christian God, sometimes I wish there was an actual name for the Christian Creator so there would be no confusion between god and God and lazy people who don't bother to capitalize on internet forums. Because i know people who believe in a god, go to sunday church, believe in the morals preached by the priest, but when questioned closely will reject most of the bible. Sorry but in that case you are a theist, and not a Christian. /rant
Imagine this thought experiment. You are not human or even a living thing but a very advanced and smart robot who studies terrestrial life from afar. You come up with the Darwinian theory of evolution that explains how life arose and how it works. In this case, would you have ANY reason to believe that living things have something called "sentience"? No, you would apply the principle of Occam's Razor and conclude that living things are mindless zombies whose behavior, however complex it may be, is explainable purely in terms of mechanistic stimuli and genetic imperatives.
If you are going to reply to this, first make sure you understand what I am saying.
I know this is late, but still...
I think in order for your argument to hold you need to define sentience in some really specific way (morphologically probably.)
Because, if by sentience you mean awareness of one's existence, then Occam's Razor isn't applicable. Awareness of one's existence, although isn't necessary does make self-preservation a lot easier. You can say that it's a pretty complicated ability (?lol I don't know what to call it) but saying that Occam's Razor is applicable to this case, is pretty much like arguing that it's easier to write Programs in assembly than it is in C++.
Yes, you don't really need classes, or object-oriented programming at all to write any program, but it is in fact more complicated to do it without these "complicated constructs."
This argument is especially viable when discussing evolution, because it occurs gradually, and constantly reuses old "code."
I think if the robot understands this logic, and it has some kind of scientific tendencies hard-coded (such as to generalize explanations of phenomena and whatnot.) It would settle on some type of "consciousness" (probably the most efficient one,) even if mechanically it's not completely the same as ours.
Well, this IS the country where "The History Channel" aires 50% religious programming. What do you expect? A nation of willfully ignorant Fox News fans certainly isn't interested in science.
On September 14 2009 03:29 Caller wrote: im ashamed that my political beliefs coincide with some of these people
The fact that "these people" are so willing to place a cultural/political agenda over a stunningly thorough body of scientific evidence and so many well-reasoned arguments should make you question the validity of the beliefs you share with them.
On September 15 2009 01:25 Louder wrote: Well, this IS the country where "The History Channel" aires 50% religious programming. What do you expect? A nation of willfully ignorant Fox News fans certainly isn't interested in science.
dont forget about the mayan calendar and Mega Disasters!
(shh dont tell anybody theres like a 0.000000001% chance of any of the megadisasters happening in their lifetime)
As I have said before if you want a clear and concise picture of the development of evolutionary theory as well as many other biological concepts/theories check out "The Growth of Biological Thought" by Ernst Mayr. Its long but its well worth it and very good.
On September 14 2009 18:21 1tym wrote: I won't go into the debate, but how is my definition incorrect? You are the one who needs education on this matter. Natural selection is {quote}* 'the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population.'
If a new species is to have new features, this require new variations. In the modern version of Darwin’s theory, these come from DNA mutations. The rate of mutation is central to evolution. Mutations are required for adaptation, and most mutations with phenotypic effects are harmful. hence why they're eliminated through natural selection. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities. If you calculate this, one in 107 x 107, or 1014. A hundred trillion. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That’s one in a billion trillion. What would you get for 4 mutations? 5?
I used the car engine example not to draw any comparison to reproduction, but merely to demonstrate the complexity of the composition involved.
* I changed the brackets to braces in order to have a nice quote tag.
I can give you that I missread your post but however you failed to mention that enviromental changes is a strong force that drives natural selection amongst other. Mutatations are not requried (dependent on definition on mutation I suppose).
Also most mutations are believed to be neutral not harmful, I dont know what you mean by phenotypic mutation thou.
Can you cite a source for those probabilities or did you make them up on the spot? Still you made an other straw man, since you some how assume that the mutations are independent, which they aren't,
You can make what ever anology for complexity that you want, but it still wont be supported by evidence afaik.
On September 14 2009 03:25 uNiGNoRe wrote: I don't see how you can "believe" in evolution. It's a fact... I don't "believe" that earth isn't flat, I know it.
Because Evolution is a theory. Theory in scientific terms implies a hypothesis. Hypotheses can ONLY be proved wrong, they can NEVER be proven right, according to the science world.
That's why.
theory is so much higher up the ladder of confidence than hypothesis. for starters, theory means ideas that are seriously developed and corroborated by evidence, so that they are worth further attention.
On September 14 2009 03:19 Ichigo1234551 wrote: There are a lot of stupid people in america. almost 90 percent rednecks User was temp-banned for this post.
I like that the mods are showing what posts people are getting banned for (unless its way TOO controversial i suppose). It reduces my curiosity
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
Literal interpretations of Religions vs really any science cannot co-exist.
But for people i hope most of them they take religions not on a factual basis but as stories, and songs with strong positions not always moral. Frankly the literal interpretation of religion is a dead facet as more knowledge spreads the obvious is revealed. Religion is to interpret why were are here and what to do about it; science is to interpret what is here. To me at least they never touch and are always separate.
On September 14 2009 18:10 HnR)hT wrote: The utter fatigue is now growing stronger than the insomnia, so I'm going back to bed after submitting this.
My consciousness argument, as spelled out in the robot analogy above and associated follow-up posts, is roughly like this (please note that this is a highly simplified form):
1. Darwinian evolution does not use the fact that living things have consciousness. (A robot that is completely unaware of consciousness, that observes living things from a distance, can conceivably formulate something like Darwinian evolution.)
Alternatively, I begin with the premise (which I regard as very strong) that consciousness in living things cannot be logically deduced from external observation of behavior alone. Yet Darwinian evolution follows (in principle) from external observation of life alone.
2. Therefore, consciousness seems extraneous in the purely Darwinian view of life.
3. But consciousness clearly exists.
4. Therefore, the Darwinian-evolutionary view of life becomes less plausible.
This is more of a plausibility argument than a logically airtight argument, which is the only kind possible in the absence of complete information.
OK. You believe you are conscious. Prove it. Prove that your actions are not due to your biological machinery.
Too hard? Well, you don't have to prove it. Just provide some evidence that your actions are in any way separate from your biological machinery. One tiny shred of proof that your actions can be separated from your biological machinery.
I'll wait.
...
Consciousness is not a scientific topic. It is too il-defined to be science. Therefore, science rejects it, as it rejects astral projection, the concept of souls, and any other supernatural concepts that cannot be definitely determinable by natural investigation.
Consciousness does not "clearly exist." How do I know that I possess a quality that I can't even rigorously define? And you even defined consciousness as something that cannot be determined by an outside party. If that's the case, why should anyone believe that anyone else is a conscious being? And if you accept that everyone around you is not conscious, why should you believe that you are conscious? Cogito ergo sum is not a scientific argument.
Because of all of this, consciousness is not a verifiable fact as far as science is concerned. Therefore, consciousness is an irrelevance to science.
Oh, you can posit that you or other people are conscious beings. Science won't stop you, as it can't determine one way or another, and science is perfectly willing to say "I don't know." However, science cannot determine that something as il-defined as consciousness actually exists, so it is not a valid subject for scientific discourse.
Here's the question though: why should the presence or absence of consciousness affect a person's moral judgment? We certainly can empathize with other creatures; that's one of those biologically hard-wired things we have. So even if we cannot determine that other beings are as conscious as we may be (if we even believe ourselves to be conscious to begin with), we clearly care about them. Science is a means to discover verifiable knowledge, not to develop a moral framework.
On September 14 2009 18:10 HnR)hT wrote: The utter fatigue is now growing stronger than the insomnia, so I'm going back to bed after submitting this.
My consciousness argument, as spelled out in the robot analogy above and associated follow-up posts, is roughly like this (please note that this is a highly simplified form):
1. Darwinian evolution does not use the fact that living things have consciousness. (A robot that is completely unaware of consciousness, that observes living things from a distance, can conceivably formulate something like Darwinian evolution.)
Alternatively, I begin with the premise (which I regard as very strong) that consciousness in living things cannot be logically deduced from external observation of behavior alone. Yet Darwinian evolution follows (in principle) from external observation of life alone.
2. Therefore, consciousness seems extraneous in the purely Darwinian view of life.
3. But consciousness clearly exists.
4. Therefore, the Darwinian-evolutionary view of life becomes less plausible.
This is more of a plausibility argument than a logically airtight argument, which is the only kind possible in the absence of complete information.
OK. You believe you are conscious. Prove it. Prove that your actions are not due to your biological machinery.
Too hard? Well, you don't have to prove it. Just provide some evidence that your actions are in any way separate from your biological machinery. One tiny shred of proof that your actions can be separated from your biological machinery.
I'll wait.
...
Correct. Where in the human body is the soul? If the soul exists outside the body, then there should at least be a physical 'gateway' to it - one or more places in the body where the soul receives input and sends information back to the body to act upon.
As for the rest of your post, you seem to think conscience and consciousness are the same word...
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
On September 15 2009 02:46 Saddened Izzy wrote: Evolution and Creationism cannot co-exist.
Oooo with the redundant period, it makes the claim so much stronger! I'll have to disagree though. Many Christians, including my friend, are strong believers in "Evolution." As the sad Izzy said, it's the stance of Creationism that disagrees with Evolution.
And I agree with some of the posters in this thread, it seems more of a publicity stunt than any genuine concern or issues.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
I agree with your conclusion but your reasoning is faulty. The vast majority of Christians don't regard the Bible as the literal word of God (in constrast to Muslims vis a vis the Koran), but the work of flawed human beings from a primitive society, attempting to transmit God's message as they best understand it. The vast majority of contemporary Christianity is not committed to the historical existence of Adam and Eve and Noah's ark, and the vast majority would outright reject the notion that God literally commanded the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites, including women and children.
On what basis do liberal Christians decide what is the word of god and what is a flawed, human account of history?
On the other hand, it is undeniable that the Christian view of man is incompatible with the purely mechanistic conception of life, with its Darwinian imperatives, and that in the West, the advent of Darwinian evolution has overthrown traditional justifications for morality.
hating knowledge, fearing truth, burning books. america is looking more and more like nazi germany every day.
you ever notice how in every movie and tv show anyone with knowledge or who even likes science is portrayed as a loser? modern USA is the most anti-intellectual culture in history. just a nation full of obese fat pigs who give their money to a church and let priests rape their kids. watch an average of 8 hours of tv and never read except for school. and the educational system is so bad people lack basic scientific literacy.
to not understand that environments select for certain traits, i.e. birds that fly better or have sharper talons will do better at getting food than slower or weaker birds, just blows my mind. these are the same people who believe noah's ark actually happened.
On September 14 2009 16:44 1tym wrote: Evolution theory and Christianity cannot co-exist period.
I don't see why not. Logically Christianity can't exist by itself, because it's nonsense... yet it does. If someone can justify Christianity they can justify evolution+Christianity. That seems to me like it would be easier because then you don't have to deny the humongous wealth of evidence for evolution.
for those interested in evolution pbs did a great documentary on the dover trial, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html it goes into good enough detail on evolution and its an interesting story about a small town caught up in the evolution v intelligent design debate. i'd highly recommend watching it if you have time and are interested in this kind of thing. scary preview
You guys do know that a theory means an idea that has been widely tested and proven true. Not some random idea that isn't 100% proven yet, and also, evolution does happen fast. Humans take 20 years for 1 generation but other organisms take a weeks, some take even a few hours.
On September 15 2009 07:27 XoXiDe wrote: for those interested in evolution pbs did a great documentary on the dover trial, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html it goes into good enough detail on evolution and its an interesting story about a small town caught up in the evolution v intelligent design debate. i'd highly recommend watching it if you have time and are interested in this kind of thing. scary preview + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_sw60C66jY
I watched that at school in my Court Procedures class. It was interesting, both the amount of ignorance that shrouding all the townspeople who hated evolution and the effort put into "intelligent design" to make it compete with evolution as a viable theory. This is despite how incredibly far off Intelligent Design strays from Christianity or any other religion.
At some point in the movie they found the definition of Intelligent Design in this textbook that was being disputed to be something along the lines of "periodically throughout time new species have appeared. this is because an intelligent designer made them and put them there at these times." A sort of macro-evolution caused by spontaneous acts of god.
Great series BTW. I was wondering how long it would take until someone posted one of AaronRa's or Thunderf00t's videos.
It is sad that this is even an issue but it seems like there are more and more people in this country that can't seem to stand to hear an opposing view point (even though this has nothing to do with a theological debate).
I doubt that it is not playing because it is too controversial. More likely it is not playing because it is boring and they don't think people will pay 10 buck+ a pop to go see it.
I highly doubt it is more controversial than Farenheit 9/11 or An Inconvenient Truth or Brokeback Mountain or even Showgirls.
It just isn't interesting controversy. Its boring controversy. That is my theory.
On September 16 2009 03:11 Savio wrote: I doubt that it is not playing because it is too controversial. More likely it is not playing because it is boring and they don't think people will pay 10 buck+ a pop to go see it.
I highly doubt it is more controversial than Farenheit 9/11 or An Inconvenient Truth or Brokeback Mountain or even Showgirls.
It just isn't interesting controversy. Its boring controversy. That is my theory.
I think its more along the lines of lobbying - disabling the potential failure of policy based on the movie's subject matter. It's blatantly obvious in this case as it (the film) has gained respect from other areas of the world.
topics like this (with no definitive answer) will --> ALWAYS <-- be controversial thus that's why america will always be willing to accept a new scientific explanation but not a religion or belief.
On September 15 2009 05:22 fast ball player wrote: hating knowledge, fearing truth, burning books. america is looking more and more like nazi germany every day.
At first I thought you might be talking about Athiests, You know, the ones who are brainwashed into repeating the same non-arguments and pointless flames.
you ever notice how in every movie and tv show anyone with knowledge or who even likes science is portrayed as a loser? modern USA is the most anti-intellectual culture in history. just a nation full of obese fat pigs who give their money to a church and let priests rape their kids. watch an average of 8 hours of tv and never read except for school. and the educational system is so bad people lack basic scientific literacy.
No, I don't notice that. Actually, I notice the complete opposite of that. Maybe it's because I live in a more liberal country, but most of the media I see (most of which comes from the US anyway) are biased strongly towards the non-theist. (And of course this is how it should be... right?)
On September 15 2009 05:22 fast ball player wrote: hating knowledge, fearing truth, burning books. america is looking more and more like nazi germany every day.
At first I thought you might be talking about Athiests, You know, the ones who are brainwashed into repeating the same non-arguments and pointless flames.
you ever notice how in every movie and tv show anyone with knowledge or who even likes science is portrayed as a loser? modern USA is the most anti-intellectual culture in history. just a nation full of obese fat pigs who give their money to a church and let priests rape their kids. watch an average of 8 hours of tv and never read except for school. and the educational system is so bad people lack basic scientific literacy.
No, I don't notice that. Actually, I notice the complete opposite of that. Maybe it's because I live in a more liberal country, but most of the media I see (most of which comes from the US anyway) are biased strongly towards the non-theist. (And of course this is how it should be... right?)
I have nothing to say about your generalization.
the point to his 'generalization' are parallels in which lie the truth - that there are such correlations whether people like to admit to them or not.
On September 15 2009 05:22 fast ball player wrote: hating knowledge, fearing truth, burning books. america is looking more and more like nazi germany every day.
At first I thought you might be talking about Athiests, You know, the ones who are brainwashed into repeating the same non-arguments and pointless flames.
you ever notice how in every movie and tv show anyone with knowledge or who even likes science is portrayed as a loser? modern USA is the most anti-intellectual culture in history. just a nation full of obese fat pigs who give their money to a church and let priests rape their kids. watch an average of 8 hours of tv and never read except for school. and the educational system is so bad people lack basic scientific literacy.
No, I don't notice that. Actually, I notice the complete opposite of that. Maybe it's because I live in a more liberal country, but most of the media I see (most of which comes from the US anyway) are biased strongly towards the non-theist. (And of course this is how it should be... right?)
I have nothing to say about your generalization.
the point to his 'generalization' are parallels in which lie the truth - that there are such correlations whether people like to admit to them or not.
I agree there is merit to what he said, of course the use of the word 'let' kind of irked me since it implies giving permission or causing something to happen. I think the majority of parents didn't want that to happen to their children.
You don't have to make a generalization to convey truth or make a point.
On September 16 2009 04:00 NastyMarine wrote: sometimes you have to make generalizations so the reader must reflect on the implications. That way the conclusion becomes more meaningful.
Touché. You bring up a good point that didn't come to mind when I wrote my posts.
I haven't read any other posts but the ops, so if this doesn't make too much sense mods feel free to delete it.
As I remember speaking to my boss who is a atheist/realist he explained to me about religion in the US and why it is such a powerfull force. When the first settlers arrived in the US there were no jails no courthouses no-one to supervise them, so the only logical solution on how to maintain power over the people thousands of miles away was the fear of God. So my reasoning for why this movie would be so contraversial would be quite simple. Americans have religion everywhere, over the 2 ages since US became independant, religion prospered, in religion, I mean christianity, when in Europe it started losing its power. Americans where being forced to chew religion and where discriminated or even prosecuted for trying to shit it out. So it stayed there for decades and decades, even tho, so many young americans are more open to the idea that there is no GOD, the older generation makes the shots and soo we have to wait 1 more generation so that such movies would not cause controversy.
P.S. Im not realy good with expressing my thoughts in English, but I hope you can understand what I meant by that.
Great series BTW. I was wondering how long it would take until someone posted one of AaronRa's or Thunderf00t's videos.
It is sad that this is even an issue but it seems like there are more and more people in this country that can't seem to stand to hear an opposing view point (even though this has nothing to do with a theological debate).
On September 16 2009 04:13 T.Sqd)LillTT wrote: Hi,
I haven't read any other posts but the ops, so if this doesn't make too much sense mods feel free to delete it.
As I remember speaking to my boss who is a atheist/realist he explained to me about religion in the US and why it is such a powerfull force. When the first settlers arrived in the US there were no jails no courthouses no-one to supervise them, so the only logical solution on how to maintain power over the people thousands of miles away was the fear of God. So my reasoning for why this movie would be so contraversial would be quite simple. Americans have religion everywhere, over the 2 ages since US became independant, religion prospered, in religion, I mean christianity, when in Europe it started losing its power. Americans where being forced to chew religion and where discriminated or even prosecuted for trying to shit it out. So it stayed there for decades and decades, even tho, so many young americans are more open to the idea that there is no GOD, the older generation makes the shots and soo we have to wait 1 more generation so that such movies would not cause controversy.
P.S. Im not realy good with expressing my thoughts in English, but I hope you can understand what I meant by that.
Err not really. Its mostly just because the country was founded by people seeking land and freedom to practice whatever religion they want. Nothing was really different between Europe and America when it comes to religion no one was prosecuted for being an atheist. This country just took a lot of pride in having been founded on "religious principles". Its not like there are 0 religious ppl in Europe right now so there really isn't any difference.
On September 16 2009 04:13 T.Sqd)LillTT wrote: Hi,
I haven't read any other posts but the ops, so if this doesn't make too much sense mods feel free to delete it.
As I remember speaking to my boss who is a atheist/realist he explained to me about religion in the US and why it is such a powerfull force. When the first settlers arrived in the US there were no jails no courthouses no-one to supervise them, so the only logical solution on how to maintain power over the people thousands of miles away was the fear of God. So my reasoning for why this movie would be so contraversial would be quite simple. Americans have religion everywhere, over the 2 ages since US became independant, religion prospered, in religion, I mean christianity, when in Europe it started losing its power. Americans where being forced to chew religion and where discriminated or even prosecuted for trying to shit it out. So it stayed there for decades and decades, even tho, so many young americans are more open to the idea that there is no GOD, the older generation makes the shots and soo we have to wait 1 more generation so that such movies would not cause controversy.
P.S. Im not realy good with expressing my thoughts in English, but I hope you can understand what I meant by that.
Err not really. Its mostly just because the country was founded by people seeking land and freedom to practice whatever religion they want. Nothing was really different between Europe and America when it comes to religion no one was prosecuted for being an atheist. This country just took a lot of pride in having been founded on "religious principles". Its not like there are 0 religious ppl in Europe right now so there really isn't any difference.
what religious principles (Flame war initiated)? Salem anyone?
On September 16 2009 04:13 T.Sqd)LillTT wrote: Hi,
I haven't read any other posts but the ops, so if this doesn't make too much sense mods feel free to delete it.
As I remember speaking to my boss who is a atheist/realist he explained to me about religion in the US and why it is such a powerfull force. When the first settlers arrived in the US there were no jails no courthouses no-one to supervise them, so the only logical solution on how to maintain power over the people thousands of miles away was the fear of God. So my reasoning for why this movie would be so contraversial would be quite simple. Americans have religion everywhere, over the 2 ages since US became independant, religion prospered, in religion, I mean christianity, when in Europe it started losing its power. Americans where being forced to chew religion and where discriminated or even prosecuted for trying to shit it out. So it stayed there for decades and decades, even tho, so many young americans are more open to the idea that there is no GOD, the older generation makes the shots and soo we have to wait 1 more generation so that such movies would not cause controversy.
P.S. Im not realy good with expressing my thoughts in English, but I hope you can understand what I meant by that.
Err not really. Its mostly just because the country was founded by people seeking land and freedom to practice whatever religion they want. Nothing was really different between Europe and America when it comes to religion no one was prosecuted for being an atheist. This country just took a lot of pride in having been founded on "religious principles". Its not like there are 0 religious ppl in Europe right now so there really isn't any difference.
Aside from the 30 or so puritan separatists on the Mayflower and the various Christian minorities that were basically invited to Pennsylvania, religious freedom really was not a motivating factor for immigration.
On September 16 2009 04:13 T.Sqd)LillTT wrote: Hi,
I haven't read any other posts but the ops, so if this doesn't make too much sense mods feel free to delete it.
As I remember speaking to my boss who is a atheist/realist he explained to me about religion in the US and why it is such a powerfull force. When the first settlers arrived in the US there were no jails no courthouses no-one to supervise them, so the only logical solution on how to maintain power over the people thousands of miles away was the fear of God. So my reasoning for why this movie would be so contraversial would be quite simple. Americans have religion everywhere, over the 2 ages since US became independant, religion prospered, in religion, I mean christianity, when in Europe it started losing its power. Americans where being forced to chew religion and where discriminated or even prosecuted for trying to shit it out. So it stayed there for decades and decades, even tho, so many young americans are more open to the idea that there is no GOD, the older generation makes the shots and soo we have to wait 1 more generation so that such movies would not cause controversy.
P.S. Im not realy good with expressing my thoughts in English, but I hope you can understand what I meant by that.
Err not really. Its mostly just because the country was founded by people seeking land and freedom to practice whatever religion they want. Nothing was really different between Europe and America when it comes to religion no one was prosecuted for being an atheist. This country just took a lot of pride in having been founded on "religious principles". Its not like there are 0 religious ppl in Europe right now so there really isn't any difference.
what religious principles (Flame war initiated)? Salem anyone?
Oh you know the usual why do you think I put them in quotes Where ever there is religion there will be those who use it for personal agendas and things that make them total hypocrites and even horrible acts. It is what happens when the concepts of God and his teachings are given to humanity. Humanity has a tendency to find ways to corrupt anything and everything.
I would say... Hunger, poverty was way more important than being able to live christianity... If you wanted just the last thing there would have been no reason to leave most european countrys.
On September 14 2009 05:53 aRod wrote: Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci.
That's not a new species, it's still a bacteria.
That's like saying a black man a a mexican woman have a baby, and the blacksican baby is a domo-novas instead of homo-sapien.
On September 14 2009 05:53 aRod wrote: Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci.
That's not a new species, it's still a bacteria.
That's like saying a black man a a mexican woman have a baby, and the blacksican baby is a domo-novas instead of homo-sapien.
On September 14 2009 05:53 aRod wrote: Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci.
That's not a new species, it's still a bacteria.
That's like saying a black man a a mexican woman have a baby, and the blacksican baby is a domo-novas instead of homo-sapien.
I wonder which part of the United States you live in.
On September 14 2009 05:53 aRod wrote: Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci.
That's not a new species, it's still a bacteria.
That's like saying a black man a a mexican woman have a baby, and the blacksican baby is a domo-novas instead of homo-sapien.
This blew my mind - an exhibition of such little understanding can surely never have been seen anywhere before...ever!
On September 14 2009 05:53 aRod wrote: Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci.
That's not a new species, it's still a bacteria.
That's like saying a black man a a mexican woman have a baby, and the blacksican baby is a domo-novas instead of homo-sapien.
Oh and following the same logic since you and your dog and the lice in that dogs fur are all Eucariotes you are also all the same species right?
On September 14 2009 05:53 aRod wrote: Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci.
That's not a new species, it's still a bacteria.
That's like saying a black man a a mexican woman have a baby, and the blacksican baby is a domo-novas instead of homo-sapien.
On September 14 2009 19:13 zcxvbn wrote: Holy shit you can't be serious.
Any movie with sex, violence, drugs, or some radical political ideology is ok for general release, but film about a scientist is not? Hell, this isn't even about some highly controversial theory like those people who insist that current climate change is not severe. This is about a guy whose theories are accepted in every higher institute of learning, even across America.
Also, do any of these movie distributors not realize that 40% of the market share is still pretty big, especially considering that many seem to be reluctant to pick it up?
(I haven't had time to read the rest of the thread, so apologies for repeating anything)
It's the US. Seeing a guy slaughter dozens of people in all sorts of creative ways is fine, but zOMG BOOBIES!!1!!oneoen!1 THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
This is even worse than boobies sir. Worse... Than... Boobies.
On September 14 2009 05:53 aRod wrote: Name the new species? They're considering name strain of staphylcoccus that is highly related to staph Aureus a new species. It has a different way of structuring it's peptidoglycan layer conveying resistance to vancomycin. Right now these are called vancymycin resistant staphylococci, but the significance of a new peptidoglycan structure and the associated genetic changes are significant. You don't seem to understand how minor changes in bacterial genetic structure warrant naming a new species. The mere presence of an enzyme called coagulase is enough to differentiate Staph Aureus from a plethora of other staphylococci.
That's not a new species, it's still a bacteria.
That's like saying a black man a a mexican woman have a baby, and the blacksican baby is a domo-novas instead of homo-sapien.
On September 16 2009 15:09 Velr wrote: I would say... Hunger, poverty was way more important than being able to live christianity... If you wanted just the last thing there would have been no reason to leave most european countrys.
Not in the 16-1700s
Most of the initial American colonies were founded by people who couldn't worship/believe the way they wanted to in England. (or in other American colonies)
Now the majority of people who came to America over its entire history (including 1800s+1900s and 2000s) probably involve much more economic or non-religious political reasons than the initial colonists.
In any case, the strength of religion in America v. Europe is probably more due to the lack of any state churches (whenever people criticized the politicians in a country with a state church they were also criticizing the church... French + Russian revolutions both were antireligious, because you had strong state-church ties)
For those saying religious people are idiots, etc. let me ask you something: Do you believe in free will? Do you believe in time? If some one should prove neither of the above existed would you accept it? It is very hard for people to let go of things they are so sure about.
On September 16 2009 15:09 Velr wrote: I would say... Hunger, poverty was way more important than being able to live christianity... If you wanted just the last thing there would have been no reason to leave most european countrys.
Not in the 16-1700s
Most of the initial American colonies were founded by people who couldn't worship/believe the way they wanted to in England. (or in other American colonies)
On September 16 2009 15:09 Velr wrote: I would say... Hunger, poverty was way more important than being able to live christianity... If you wanted just the last thing there would have been no reason to leave most european countrys.
Not in the 16-1700s
Most of the initial American colonies were founded by people who couldn't worship/believe the way they wanted to in England. (or in other American colonies)
"Most" is an incredible overstatement.
Well if you don't count the colonies gained by conquest (ie colonized by other european nations and then taken by the British), then it is a sizable majority. Massachusets, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. (most of the rest of the north was colonized by the Dutch and then taken)... the south was more of the purely economic colonies.
And the point is that for most of the first 100 years of its existence, America was among a very small group of European populated nations that did not have a state church. And that those colonies that did have a state church before the country was formed often had one that was not the state church of other european powers.
On September 17 2009 04:41 sandroba wrote: For those saying religious people are idiots, etc. let me ask you something: Do you believe in free will? Do you believe in time? If some one should prove neither of the above existed would you accept it? It is very hard for people to let go of things they are so sure about.
I don't think religious people are idiots, I just think the ideological coercion practiced by most religious institutions catches people at an early age. My roomate is very religious and incredibly smart, at least as smart as me.
Free will? Probably doesn't exist. I see my brain as an interconnected web that will invariably and continually process sensory input, integrate it with past wiring, possibly form new neural connections if the proper molecular stimulation/neurotransmiter levels and spacial potential are present, iall while initiating bodily responses etc... etc... repeat. Neurologist can't point to any location where "free will" comes from nor do we understand the complex interaction between the frontal lobe and the emotion centers. It's arrogant to speculate free will exists as more than an Idea. Personally human behavior is far too predictable and patterned for me to believe in the existance.
Time? Most likely? I mean shit we are living it, I can see a clock. I would accept anything as likely true if the evidence suggests it.
On September 16 2009 15:09 Velr wrote: I would say... Hunger, poverty was way more important than being able to live christianity... If you wanted just the last thing there would have been no reason to leave most european countrys.
Not in the 16-1700s
Most of the initial American colonies were founded by people who couldn't worship/believe the way they wanted to in England. (or in other American colonies)
"Most" is an incredible overstatement.
Well if you don't count the colonies gained by conquest (ie colonized by other european nations and then taken by the British), then it is a sizable majority. Massachusets, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. (most of the rest of the north was colonized by the Dutch and then taken)... the south was more of the purely economic colonies.
And the point is that for most of the first 100 years of its existence, America was among a very small group of European populated nations that did not have a state church. And that those colonies that did have a state church before the country was formed often had one that was not the state church of other european powers.
Where they then proceeded to persecute native Americans and non-Christians ruthlessly. Irony Overwhelming!
On September 17 2009 05:37 aRod wrote: I don't think religious people are idiots, I just think the ideological coercion practiced by most religious institutions catches people at an early age. My roomate is very religious and incredibly smart, at least as smart as me.
Free will? Probably doesn't exist. I see my brain as an interconnected web that will invariably and continually process sensory input, integrate it with past wiring, possibly form new neural connections if the proper molecular stimulation/neurotransmiter levels and spacial potential are present, iall while initiating bodily responses etc... etc... repeat. Neurologist can't point to any location where "free will" comes from nor do we understand the complex interaction between the frontal lobe and the emotion centers. It's arrogant to speculate free will exists as more than an Idea. Personally human behavior is far too predictable and patterned for me to believe in the existance.
Time? Most likely? I mean shit we are living it, I can see a clock. I would accept anything as likely true if the evidence suggests it.
Time is indeed very intriguing, it is probably the less understood phenomenom by mankind. I also do not think free will exists and therefore cannot blame people for not believing in things that for me seem obvious. It is just a consequence of many previous occurances.
On September 16 2009 15:09 Velr wrote: I would say... Hunger, poverty was way more important than being able to live christianity... If you wanted just the last thing there would have been no reason to leave most european countrys.
Not in the 16-1700s
Most of the initial American colonies were founded by people who couldn't worship/believe the way they wanted to in England. (or in other American colonies)
"Most" is an incredible overstatement.
Well if you don't count the colonies gained by conquest (ie colonized by other european nations and then taken by the British), then it is a sizable majority. Massachusets, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. (most of the rest of the north was colonized by the Dutch and then taken)... the south was more of the purely economic colonies.
And the point is that for most of the first 100 years of its existence, America was among a very small group of European populated nations that did not have a state church. And that those colonies that did have a state church before the country was formed often had one that was not the state church of other european powers.
Where they then proceeded to persecute native Americans and non-Christians ruthlessly. Irony Overwhelming!
Well most of them weren't formed (except R.I.) for the purpose of 'religious freedom' in an abstract concept, and so most agreed with the state-church link, they just wanted thier church to be the one linked to the state. And it was as they got less religious that they began to move from religion motivating missionizing and helping the Indians to justifying land grabs with religion (once religion moved from the prime motivating factor to a justifying motivating factor... which is the problem with religion)
On September 17 2009 05:37 aRod wrote: I don't think religious people are idiots, I just think the ideological coercion practiced by most religious institutions catches people at an early age. My roomate is very religious and incredibly smart, at least as smart as me.
Free will? Probably doesn't exist. I see my brain as an interconnected web that will invariably and continually process sensory input, integrate it with past wiring, possibly form new neural connections if the proper molecular stimulation/neurotransmiter levels and spacial potential are present, iall while initiating bodily responses etc... etc... repeat. Neurologist can't point to any location where "free will" comes from nor do we understand the complex interaction between the frontal lobe and the emotion centers. It's arrogant to speculate free will exists as more than an Idea. Personally human behavior is far too predictable and patterned for me to believe in the existance.
Time? Most likely? I mean shit we are living it, I can see a clock. I would accept anything as likely true if the evidence suggests it.
Time is indeed very intriguing, it is probably the less understood phenomenom by mankind. I also do not think free will exists and therefore cannot blame people for not believing in things that for me seem obvious. It is just a consequence of many previous occurances.
To clarify, just because free will may not exist as anything but a complicated series of input->process->output doesn't mean that people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. The reason people are punished is because their actions harm others.
I thought this might be interesting to some of you, basically for the last 200,000 years these animals have been isolated in the crater of a volcano and have evolved and developed into new species:
Good interview about fundamental Christians and the problem they represent
ROFL
i 100% agree with that guy though.
While I disagree with fiscal conservatives....what really makes me hate the republican party is how they pander to the social conservatives and nutbags out there. Oh no government dont regulate me......yet they cry for the government to intervene in gay marriage and stem cell research.
know what pisses me off? EVOLUTION IS NOT THE SAME AS ABIOGENESIS
you wont believe how many right wing conservative christians denounce evolution because their "god" created all life. Scientists have another theory for that (i.e abiogenesis) Evolution is the theory that all forms of life on earth have a common ancestor.
EPT
