Evolution's starting point

[Mr Woof]

(02-11-2011 02:52 PM)morondog Wrote:  

(02-11-2011 10:24 AM)theophilus Wrote:  I should have said that it is obvious that life is too complex to have evolved by chance. Most scientists who contribute to the mainstream scientific journals begin their studies with the assumption that everything can be explained without any need of a creator. If they begin with this assumption they have to believe the Darwinian concept of evolution whether it is supported by evidence or not.

I have heard this argument before. I think it's that these scientists come to a conclusion that you do not like. They are experts in their field. You do not dispute that quantum mechanics is a true description of the world (edited: of the atom), despite the fact that those scientists uniformly do not assume God. Or do you so dispute?

I decry the use of the word obvious. What's obvious to you is not obvious to me. I find it non-obvious in the extreme, and I'm not just saying that. What's obvious to me is that our imaginations are limited, so *every* statement, including obvious ones, must be carefully checked. When I check your obvious statement I feel very uncomfortable and believe that it should be further investigated. You are free to provide further justification.

Please note that I am not asking that you should be an expert in your field before commenting on any topic. But I think that to make a sweeping statement that *all* of these scientists are making a basic error, without offering any reason for that statement, is short-sighted and an insult frankly, to the fine minds who devote their lives to studying this stuff in depth, which you so cheerfully dismiss as folly.

Furthermore, please state your reason for taking the Bible as an authority on this? You appear to be going to absurd lengths to make everything fit into the Biblical account. You must have some justification for this? Or do you just know that the Bible is true?

Very briefly the most profound question is surely the initial cosmic causality of where we presently find ourselves.

H.O.C......as for singularity; I don't understand it despite my short flirtation with Daoism.

REligions look with crazed dogmatism at a lot of historical stuff and then extrapolate wildly all over the place. Get your act together religious people!

[morondog]

(02-11-2011 03:26 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Very briefly the most profound question is surely the initial cosmic causality of where we presently find ourselves.

H.O.C......as for singularity; I don't understand it despite my short flirtation with Daoism.

REligions look with crazed dogmatism at a lot of historical stuff and then extrapolate wildly all over the place. Get your act together religious people!

I'm 'fraid I don't understand what you're saying?

Are you saying that we should not be arguing over this but over the big bang? 'Cos then I disagree - there's been some statements made which are falsifiable (or at least, cast-doubtable-upon) right here, right now. So let's do it.

[free2011]

Reminds me of an argument my son had with his sister a couple years ago when trying to defend Santa Clause. Every rational statement she came up with to disprove the jolly fella was met with a creative "What if" statement from him.

Like how can Santa cover the entire Earth in one night. What if he stops time so what we see as one day is actually a month to him. But reindeer can't fly. What if they are sprinkled with magic dust. And on and on.

The religious continue to fight rational scientific theory backed by evidence with their version of a "What if" statement. What if evolution started after Noah loaded his ark as an example. In the end the biblical story is as ridiculous as one about Santa Clause. The only difference is the age of the deceived and the extent of the lie.

[houseofcantor]

Nah. "Formally" the structure goes - particle physics and cosmology (yeah, those two are linked - curious, ain't it), abiogenesis (where Imma wondering if "naive philosophy stuff like gender and morality may actually be structure separating organic from inorganic), and then evolution.

So if one is "formal and shit," one would "start" with abiogenesis (cause evolution "common descent" - another laugh in my book - "we didn't 'evolve' from common ancestor 'like god' you creationist fool?") - last time I looked, that was mathematical - I don't know if you wanna go there.

---

(02-11-2011 10:24 AM)theophilus Wrote:  The two fields are connected because life can't evolve until it has been created.

Blaspheme! Who you qoutin' there, scholar? Moses or God?

And God said "Let there be light." Now you tell me what kinda life-form is light, I might actually credit you with some knowledge.

I have "faith in Pure Number" 'cause mathematics is showing how "number" can have "meaning" in terms of structure and biology... we got any biologists in the house? It's "right handed proteins" we work with, no? (I know the "lack" of a left-handed muon is how "parity got itself disproven in an afternoon" according to that guy who mighta won the Nobel for it... dang alcohol. )

Oh! What "witchcraft" is this? Geometry - downgraded for an age due to religious nonsense.

---

(02-11-2011 03:26 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  H.O.C......as for singularity; I don't understand it despite my short flirtation with Daoism.

I may have "fucked up' and answered that question like Lao Tzu. "Yin and Yang" are not tao - as I have heard *cough, cough* amateurs *cough, cough* (not sayin you, thinking of others) state. tao is unity; identity is dual-state - and yeah, that is "epic win" of sorts for dualism - 'cause "dual-state identity" seems to be me "fucking up like Socrates in the naive philosophy business."

Therefore god must be involved - I blame it all on Gwyneth Paltrow.

[Mr Woof]

(02-11-2011 03:46 PM)morondog Wrote:  

(02-11-2011 03:26 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Very briefly the most profound question is surely the initial cosmic causality of where we presently find ourselves.

H.O.C......as for singularity; I don't understand it despite my short flirtation with Daoism.

REligions look with crazed dogmatism at a lot of historical stuff and then extrapolate wildly all over the place. Get your act together religious people!

I'm 'fraid I don't understand what you're saying?

Are you saying that we should not be arguing over this but over the big bang? 'Cos then I disagree - there's been some statements made which are falsifiable (or at least, cast-doubtable-upon) right here, right now. So let's do it.

Good point, Popper would be proud of you!

I would like to see stronger emphasis on ethical issues within the scientific method.

As for religions, if they get away from the pie in the sky, religious history, in my view, is not without value.

[houseofcantor]

(03-11-2011 01:06 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  As for religions, if they get away from the pie in the sky, religious history, in my view, is not without value.

Yeah, put 'em all in the Smithsonian - example of what not to do.

[morondog]

(03-11-2011 01:06 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Good point, Popper would be proud of you!

I would like to see stronger emphasis on ethical issues within the scientific method.

As for religions, if they get away from the pie in the sky, religious history, in my view, is not without value.

Thanks

I'm not sure that you *can* talk about ethical issues within the scientific method really. Science is for deciding what's true... ethics is for arguing what to do about it after we've done that. Not sure how you could mix the two... I see them as completely separate? e.g. science can make a bomb. Ethics can decide two things: should we make a bomb, and should we drop the bomb, but has nothing to contribute to the process of actually making the bomb or deriving the theory...

Ethics can direct scientific research I guess but... I don't like that. If I want to investigate something I don't want some guy telling me what's right to investigate, it cramps my style - if we did that, then evolution would never have even got off the ground.

And it's definitely true that religious history is interesting and important - it shapes so many of our lives today, regardless of our affiliation, how could it not be?

[houseofcantor]

(03-11-2011 01:34 AM)morondog Wrote:  Not sure how you could mix the two...

Love.

There are two basic and universal paradigms in Christian theology that i have rediscovered as a man of science. God is Love. The more love you give, the more love you have.

If science finds a way to confirm my hypothesis that love is the emotional dynamic of least entropy - love will be all science needs.

(Cause science all by itself tends to blow shit up and ask questions later )

[Thammuz]

(02-11-2011 10:24 AM)theophilus Wrote:  

(01-11-2011 11:11 AM)Thammuz Wrote:  It's possible that the first lifeform was somewhat similar to a modern single-cell organism, but that's besides the field of study of evolution. You are talking about abiogenesis, which is a completely different field of study. That should also answer the questions at the end of your post.

The two fields are connected because life can't evolve until it has been created.

Even if they are connected, abiogenesis' ending point being the starting point for the other, evolution has been scientifically proven, accept it. Absence of complete proof (for the time being) for abiogenesis doesn't prove that evolution is wrong, nor does it prove that the bible is right. That's basic logical argumentation (unless you believe all scientists are plotting a conspiracy because they are devil worshippers or something along those lines, in which case we have nothing more to discuss).

(02-11-2011 10:24 AM)theophilus Wrote:  

Quote:Ok, so you're actually saying that:
-dinosaurs evolved after the flood?
-humans and dinosaus co-existed?

Now, that must've been some happy times, the Rexie the T-Rex sleeping in Noah's back yard. I never read anything about tyrannosaurus or velociraptor attacks in the Bible, though. And those were mean hunters...

But don't all cultures have legends of dragons? Have you considered the possibility that dragon is just another name for dinosaur?

Yes, and elves, leprechauns, fauns, orcs, the monster of Loch Ness, el Chupacabre, the Yeti, satyrs and many many more. We haven't found evidence of them either. But, okay dragons existed. Flying, fire spitting dragons... right

Just like this diplodocus:


Ooooh, scary... Come on, are you serious? He doesn't even look like one. And can you imagine the repercussions of dinosaurs co-existing with humans?
And I repeat my statement: 6000 years for dinosaurs to evolve into the current kinds of animals? + dying and hiding deep underground, appearing to have been there for much much longer...

(02-11-2011 10:24 AM)theophilus Wrote:  

Quote:Another flaw is that it your claims are disproved by radiometric dating. I know you want to use 'special pleading' for an 'accelerated radioactive decay', but that claim hasn't been proven either. Nevertheless, I know you'll ignore; just be aware that wa don't fall for it.

I have discussed that subject in this thread.
http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Age

You have discussed it, yes (I read it), but you didn't prove a thing. You made the conclusion fit your beliefs without a shred of proof. That's all.

(01-11-2011 10:09 AM)theophilus Wrote:  The common ancestor of dogs must have descended from another organism that was even more genetically complex. If we carry this process back we find that life must have started with a life form that was extremely complex genetically and possessed the potential of producing a great variety of descendants. This is exactly what the Biblical account of creation says happened.

Quote:Where does the Bible state exactly that? I read your post from Genesis 3 times, but I couldn't find that statement. Please give the correct verse where everything is explained in the terms you mention.

I should have said that this process in consistent with what the Bible says.

Vague terms don't prove a thing. I guess your salary ranges between €0 and €50.000.000, therefore I have guessed your salary, which makes me a mind-reader. The bible is wrong in many other fields (just check the link that i've provided)
This cartoon further illustrates the need for a scientific method:





Ok, theophilus, I know the scientific method doesn't mean anything to you. If 1+1=3 because the bible says it is, you'd probably believe it. The bible also states that pi=3, so I hope for your sake that you don't major in mathematics.

Just ask yourself the question: "what if i'm wrong?"

We tought about it, most of us in any case. I don't want to burn in hell, or be evil. But logical reasoning and scientific discoveries have led to the conclusion that it just doesn't make sense. And I could even go to church twice a day, shout that the bible is the true word of God, try to convert anyone, live according to the rule of God ... just hold on a sec...

*kils colleague for being gay* (sorry, Leviticus is pretty clear about that)

... so, living according the rule of God. I still wouldn't believe it. And if God can read my mind, I'm doomed anyway. Why doesn't he appear before us? He created the world and universe according to you, right? Can't he just appear from a cloud and say: "hellooo-ooo, it's-a-me-Mari...ehm God; praise me or die!" Why doesn't he? Probably because he doesn't exist, and surely not in the biblical way.



A few more notes:
-The bible has been translated many times: don't use your english version as the correct one.
-The bible contains many more books that have been banned by the Vatican and remain deeply hidden within its vaults. Who says you have the complete and correct story?



I will stop the conversation here, as there is nood need to go further with the current reasoning and debating rules.

Theophilus, I hope you have an enlightening and fruitful day

(Now, isn't that nice from a guy who can't have ethics or morals? )




edit: typo

[houseofcantor]

(02-11-2011 10:24 AM)theophilus Wrote:  There is a similarity between birth and death. When we are born our body leaves our mother's womb to enter into a new life. When we die our soul leaves this material world for a new kind of existence.

What!?!?

Blaspheme!

You have just implied that you support choice, evolution, and stem cell research... now yer thinking.

You a betting man? I'm betting i may yet prove that human identity "I am" is emergent at the age of three. Know why I can make that kinda bet? Trinity.

I understand YHWH.
I understand scripture.
I understand religion is broke.

I am atheist is not me saying I ain't with YHWH. Know what "human life begins at three" does to extant theology? That's right. Better get to thinking before I accidentally devour the world.

(Besides - your implication implies that my thinking is already correct. Know what else I got? Conceptual engineering is done in life. Celestial engineering is done after. I didn't get to doing this kinda thinking without the Bible - but there does seem to be a dearth of thought with the Bible.)