REM and Darwin
Daneel
"Man on the Moon" lyrics:
"Charles Darwin had ther balls to ask"
Anyone knows what exactly was meant? (I mean, why Michael
Stipe put it into this song?)
see you
Daneel [a#323 | U. of Ediacara student #000666]
! DO NOT send emails to my DejaNews adress, but to !
! "ustokos!cs.elte.hu", after replacing "!" with "@". !
************************************************************
"Ever tried. Ever failed.
Never mind. Try again.
Fail better." _Salman Rushdie_
StOo
i believe it is a reference to Charles Darwin presenting his theory of
evolution despite the massive (religious) resistance and attempts to
discredit him after it..
of course, it's probably not meant to be taken literally..
stoo..
"Daneel" <dan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3B027B58...@my-deja.com...
Tim Tyler
: Watching the Köln concert, I just noticed this line in REM's
: "Man on the Moon" lyrics:
: "Charles Darwin had ther balls to ask"
: Anyone knows what exactly was meant? (I mean, why Michael
: Stipe put it into this song?)
If you think asking what REM's lyrics mean is a useful activity
try listening to Murmur some more ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler http://rockz.co.uk/ http://alife.co.uk/ http://atoms.org.uk/
Ken Cox
> Watching the Köln concert, I just noticed this line in REM's
> "Man on the Moon" lyrics:
>
> "Charles Darwin had ther balls to ask"
>
> Anyone knows what exactly was meant? (I mean, why Michael
> Stipe put it into this song?)
It has the correct meter and rhymes with the next line?
(That seems to be the only guiding principle for most
popular song lyrics.)
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Sammy bm
through his discovery of evolution as opposed to god creating everything in 7
days.
I suppose its another of mans wonderful discoveries and exploits, along with
"Newton got beaned by the apple good" when Newton discovered gravity, and the
eponymous putting a" man on the moon"
Andrew Glasgow
Daneel <dan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Watching the Köln concert, I just noticed this line in REM's
> "Man on the Moon" lyrics:
>
> "Charles Darwin had ther balls to ask"
>
> Anyone knows what exactly was meant? (I mean, why Michael
> Stipe put it into this song?)
Yes. Someone does know exactly what was meant: the writer.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Floyd
Daneel <dan...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
<3B027B58...@my-deja.com>...
> Watching the Köln concert, I just noticed this line in REM's
> "Man on the Moon" lyrics:
>
> "Charles Darwin had ther balls to ask"
>
> Anyone knows what exactly was meant? (I mean, why Michael
> Stipe put it into this song?)
>
It scans properly and rhymes with "Egypt was troubled by the horrible asp"
and it also makes a decent transition to the four questions in the chorous,
but that's probably coincidence. As Michael Stipe said, "The words to the
songs are meant to be heard, not read." I admit that I get a bit of a
chuckle out of the image of Darwin asking Andy Kaufman if he's goofing on
Elvis; serious anachronism. Still, REM lyrics are not meant to tell
logical, linear stories. This is pop, it's not opera! ;-)
-Floyd
zoren
Daneel wrote:
>Watching the Köln concert, I just noticed this line in REM's
>"Man on the Moon" lyrics:
>
> "Charles Darwin had ther balls to ask"
>
>Anyone knows what exactly was meant? (I mean, why Michael
>Stipe put it into this song?)
Mr. Charles Darwin had *their* balls to ask? Now that puts a new spin on it!
Seriously, though, the line is almost certainly a reference to Darwin's
critique of the belief that all humans descend from Adam and Eve, hence, he
had the balls to question if this was actually the truth.
As to why Mr. Stipe would use that line in song is, as usual, anyone's
guess.
Zoren
Mr. PB
I believe what you are asking is the reference to "balls", this is common
American phrase which means he had the "strength" to take a stand, on the issue
of evolution. It is a reference to the male gonads, implying that an
individuals who has the balls must have high level of testoterone and therefore
more maleness, refering to the stereotypical notion that males take more
chances than females.
seaotter
> -Floyd
Are you fucking nuts? Pop? REM? Brittany Spheres is pop. REM is a window to
the eternal. Get your head out of your ass or at least your ears.
seaotter
wilkins
A window to the eternally pompous? I do like Stipes' voice though, even
if the melodies get repetitious...
And who reads operatic libretta for deep meaning? Half of it translates
as scattered evocative but generally meaningless phrases (and the other
half is Wagner), so perhaps REM *is* opera.
OK, take your best shot :-)
--
John Wilkins, Head, Communication Services, The Walter and Eliza Hall
Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Karl
zoren <sfri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dug8b$1vp$1...@news.inet.tele.dk...
Good point. It's a little ditty about folks who were unorthodox. "Moses
went walking with a staff of wood"....Moses was certainly unorthodox and
different. Putting a man on the moon was unorthodox. So was Darwin.
"Andy Kauffman in a wrestling match"--okay, so not quite up there with Moses
and Darwin, but still....it was unorthodox and differnent. Who knows, maybe
Mr. Stipes idolizes the man.
Now what blows this whole theory is the line "let's play twister, let's play
risk....yea yea yea yea".
I wasn't around when it was popular, but maybe Twister was really unorthodox
at the time? I could only imagine that contorting oneself into unthinkably
horrific positions whilst watching the Brady Bunch would be nothing short of
"different".
Jim Loats
wil...@wehi.edu.au (wilkins) wrote:
> seaotter <Seao...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > This is pop, it's not opera! ;-)
> > > -Floyd
> >
> > Are you fucking nuts? Pop? REM? Brittany Spheres is pop. REM is a
> > window to
> > the eternal. Get your head out of your ass or at least your ears.
> >
> > seaotter
>
> A window to the eternally pompous? I do like Stipes' voice though, even
> if the melodies get repetitious...
>
> And who reads operatic libretta for deep meaning? Half of it translates
> as scattered evocative but generally meaningless phrases (and the other
> half is Wagner), so perhaps REM *is* opera.
>
> OK, take your best shot :-)
You knew it was coming...
'Well, basically there are two sorts of opera,' said Nanny, who also had
the true witch's ability to be confidently expert on the basis of no
experience whatsoever. 'There's your heavy opera, where basically people
sing foreign and it goes like "Oh oh oh, I am dyin', oh, I am dyin', oh,
oh, oh, that's what I'm doin'", and there's your light opera, where they
sing in foreign and it basically goes "Beer! Beer! Beer! Beer! I like to
drink lots of beer!", although sometimes they drink champagne instead.
That's basically all of opera, reely.'
-- _Maskerade_, Terry Pratchett
Actually, the light opera sounds a lot like Fridays at the Thumb. Early
on Friday, of course, when folks are still coherent enough to sing.
Jim
--
.sig file available upon request
Eros
> "Man on the Moon" lyrics:
>
> "Charles Darwin had ther balls to ask"
>
> Anyone knows what exactly was meant? (I mean, why Michael
> Stipe put it into this song?)
You have to listen to it played backwards to find out. :)
--
EROS.
"Will you speak falsely for God, and speak deceitfully for him?"
Job 13:7
"Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
Hebrews 11:1
"Believers are justified in all things."
Acts 13:39
John Wilkins
Replace "witches" with "philosophers" and "Nanny" with "Wilkins" and
you've pretty well got it..
>
> Actually, the light opera sounds a lot like Fridays at the Thumb. Early
> on Friday, of course, when folks are still coherent enough to sing.
>
> Jim
Stick philosophers near alcohol and so long as they can breathe, they
can sing. Coherence is for wimps.
--
John Wilkins at home
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
sheep defender
<j_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yeah, that's all, if you leave out all the carefully constrained and
perfectly balanced ambiguity, AND the fine tuning (integer resolutionings)
targeted at our innate affinity for recognizing important patterns for
survival (even when there ain't any in the said 'data'!).
Defender
Ken Cox
> And who reads operatic libretta for deep meaning? Half of it translates
> as scattered evocative but generally meaningless phrases (and the other
> half is Wagner), so perhaps REM *is* opera.
Pratchett's take on the words, from _Maskerade_, is classic.
Agnes: "But what do the words mean?"
Pianist: "Let me see, I'm a little rusty, but it would be,
This door sticks,
This damn door sticks,
Why will it not open?
I am pushing, but it stays shut,
Perhaps I should be pulling?"
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> 'There's your heavy opera, [...] it goes like "Oh oh oh, I am dyin'[...]",
> and there's your light opera, [...] and it basically goes "Beer! Beer!
> Beer! Beer! I like to drink lots of beer!"
>
> Actually, the light opera sounds a lot like Fridays at the Thumb. Early
> on Friday, of course, when folks are still coherent enough to sing.
Later on Friday, when the effects of mixing several quarts
of beer with the more dubious items on the snack menu kick
in, it's more like heavy opera.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Floyd
seaotter <Seao...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<9dvdnh$gju$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
> This is pop, it's not opera! ;-)
> > -Floyd
>
> Are you fucking nuts?
Well, that's what the petition says, but I don't believe it.
> Pop? REM? Brittany Spheres is pop.
Aaaahhh, no, I see the problem. Brittany Spears is pAp, or perhaps a
puppet. The words sound similar, but the meaning is different. In order
to be popular music, you have to make some music, so Brittany can't be pop.
> REM is a window to
> the eternal. Get your head out of your ass or at least your ears.
>
> seaotter
Settle down, Bevis. It's only rock and roll.
-Floyd
Floyd
wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in article
<1etjyou.om2zkn1t4ncg0N%wil...@wehi.edu.au>...
> seaotter <Seao...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > This is pop, it's not opera! ;-)
> > > -Floyd
> >
> > Are you fucking nuts? Pop? REM? Brittany Spheres is pop. REM is a
window to
> > the eternal. Get your head out of your ass or at least your ears.
> >
> > seaotter
>
> A window to the eternally pompous? I do like Stipes' voice though, even
> if the melodies get repetitious...
>
> And who reads operatic libretta for deep meaning? Half of it translates
> as scattered evocative but generally meaningless phrases (and the other
> half is Wagner), so perhaps REM *is* opera.
>
> OK, take your best shot :-)
Two words: La Traviata!
[muttering]
Harumph...'evocative but generally meaningles phrases' indeed! Ok, for
"Werter," I can see your point...and "Turandot," and I suppose even "Elisir
d'Amore," but "Il Trovatore?" "Fliedermaus?" What about "Don Giovanni,"
ferchrissakes! Harumph, I say to you, sir, and Harumph again!
[/mutter] ;-)
-Floyd
seaotter
> -Floyd
But I like it. Like it. Yes, I do.
seaotter
wilkins
> wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in article
> <1etjyou.om2zkn1t4ncg0N%wil...@wehi.edu.au>...
> > seaotter <Seao...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is pop, it's not opera! ;-)
> > > > -Floyd
> > >
> > > Are you fucking nuts? Pop? REM? Brittany Spheres is pop. REM is a
> window to
> > > the eternal. Get your head out of your ass or at least your ears.
> > >
> > > seaotter
> >
> > A window to the eternally pompous? I do like Stipes' voice though, even
> > if the melodies get repetitious...
> >
> > And who reads operatic libretta for deep meaning? Half of it translates
> > as scattered evocative but generally meaningless phrases (and the other
> > half is Wagner), so perhaps REM *is* opera.
> >
> > OK, take your best shot :-)
>
> Two words: La Traviata!
>
> [muttering]
> Harumph...'evocative but generally meaningles phrases' indeed! Ok, for
> "Werter," I can see your point...and "Turandot," and I suppose even "Elisir
> d'Amore," but "Il Trovatore?" "Fliedermaus?" What about "Don Giovanni,"
> ferchrissakes! Harumph, I say to you, sir, and Harumph again!
> [/mutter] ;-)
> -Floyd
Oh I am the very model of a modern Aussie philistine.
...
When the Mikado was done a while back with Eric Idle as the Lord High
Executioner (BBC?), and he sang "I've got a little list", the first item
was "Australians of all kinds"...
Mr. PB
Actually i have always thought this to be reference to the early days in the
local scene when we would actually play these games at parties, i believe he
was reminiscing.
aranemgale
He asked where did we come from...and even though people hated what he had
to say he had the balls to do it. People still hate his theory of evolution
today. That to me took mighty big balls!!!
Rob
"Andrew Glasgow" <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote in message
news:amg39.REMOVETHIS-A5...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
Adam Marczyk
news:p7oN6.131817$2_.41...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> To me it means that Darwin went against society and the church at the
time.
> He asked where did we come from...and even though people hated what he had
> to say he had the balls to do it. People still hate his theory of
evolution
> today. That to me took mighty big balls!!!
Darwin was hardly an iconoclast. He held off publishing his own theory for a
long time because he was afraid of the implications.
[snip]
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
MEow
What? Of course they're pop - some pop's just worse than other. I
happen to like Eurythmics sometimes, but they're still pop IMO.
--
Nikitta - Female with gender-ambigous name
Lifelong atheist #1759. EAC - Spanker of Theists
AFV Bitchiness-Club
"Vell. Nikitta's jus this gal, you know" Thåths (afdaniain)
seaotter
> happen to like Eurythmics sometimes, but they're still pop IMO.
>
> --
> Nikitta
I beg to differ. IMO.
seaotter
Bloody Viking
aranemgale (arane...@home.com) wrote:
: To me it means that Darwin went against society and the church at the time.
: He asked where did we come from...and even though people hated what he had
: to say he had the balls to do it. People still hate his theory of evolution
: today. That to me took mighty big balls!!!
Just look at this newsgroup! There's a LOT of people who just can't stomach
the thought that we came from a prehistoric ape.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
CUIDADO: Las Puertas Estan Listo Para Cerrar.
MEow
Hehe - I expected you to, but there should be room for that too :0)
--
Nikitta - Female with gender-ambigous name
Lifelong atheist #1759. EAC - Spanker of Theists
AFV Bitchiness-Club
"Do you mean they answered the phone?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How on earth did you managed to make them do that???????" Amynthas (Sheddie)
seaotter
>
> --
> Nikitta
Maybe in your skewed view of the Universe, but I say if you ain't with me
your agin me.
seaotter
Lord Alistair Davidson, part time deity
>
> aranemgale (arane...@home.com) wrote:
>
> : To me it means that Darwin went against society and the church at the time.
> : He asked where did we come from...and even though people hated what he had
> : to say he had the balls to do it. People still hate his theory of evolution
> : today. That to me took mighty big balls!!!
>
> Just look at this newsgroup! There's a LOT of people who just can't stomach
> the thought that we came from a prehistoric ape.
And then the Americans went and elected one!
--
Lord [INSERT NAME HERE]
"I can't do everything / But I'd do anything for you. / I can't do
anything / 'Cept be in love with you." -- Dire Straits, Romeo and Juliet
"She's a moonchild / Gathering the flowers in a garden. / Lovely
moonchild / Drifting on the echoes of the hours." -- King Crimson,
Moonchild
Mr. PB
And then the Americans went and elected one! >>
Really sucks doesn't it?
StOo
message news:3B0D9713...@yahoo.co.uk...
> Bloody Viking wrote:
> >
> > aranemgale (arane...@home.com) wrote:
> >
> > : To me it means that Darwin went against society and the church at the
time.
> > : He asked where did we come from...and even though people hated what he
had
> > : to say he had the balls to do it. People still hate his theory of
evolution
> > : today. That to me took mighty big balls!!!
> >
> > Just look at this newsgroup! There's a LOT of people who just can't
stomach
> > the thought that we came from a prehistoric ape.
>
> And then the Americans went and elected one!
n1.. made me smile :)
stoo..
Pat James
wrote
(in message <3B0D9713...@yahoo.co.uk>):
> Bloody Viking wrote:
>>
>> aranemgale (arane...@home.com) wrote:
>>
>>> To me it means that Darwin went against society and the church at the
>>> time.
>>> He asked where did we come from...and even though people hated what he had
>>> to say he had the balls to do it. People still hate his theory of
>>> evolution
>>> today. That to me took mighty big balls!!!
>>
>> Just look at this newsgroup! There's a LOT of people who just can't stomach
>> the thought that we came from a prehistoric ape.
>
> And then the Americans went and elected one!
>
>
As a duly electe member of the Chimpanzee Anti Defamation Society I must
request that you withdraw that remark. Dubya is not an ape. He's barely even
a primate.
--
Proud member of not one, but _two_ of Petey der Gross's Lists.
Proud member of the Peterbaition International Secret Society.
Founding member of the Chimpanzee Anti Defamaition Society. Ook. Want a
banana?
BrgmtNVtvr
>> the thought that we came from a prehistoric ape.
>
Uh ... well, actually, we sort of *didn't,* but he's taken over the Monkey
House, anyway. --Bergie
Jay M
"StOo" <wildREM...@hotCAPSmailTOMAIL.com> wrote in message
news:fDkP6.7$CT1....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "Lord Alistair Davidson, part time deity" <lord...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:3B0D9713...@yahoo.co.uk...
> > Bloody Viking wrote:
> > >
> > > aranemgale (arane...@home.com) wrote:
> > > Just look at this newsgroup! There's a LOT of people who just can't
> stomach
> > > the thought that we came from a prehistoric ape.
Personally, it's not the inability to stomach the thought as much as the
absurdity. For instance, according to natural selection as I understand it,
the strong propagate and the weak die off. If that is the case, why are
there still monkeys running around? I thought they were supposed to die off
and be replaced. And if there are still monkeys (further down the chain and
less developed) why aren't there still a bunch of (more developed)
monkey-men (other than the pres =) ) running around? It doesn't seem
probable.
I definately agree that some small changes are possible within a species,
like people are getting taller, and skin color, eye color and genetic traits
like that, but these are changes that take place within the species because
it was all in our genetic code to begin with. Even today, some races are
taller than others on average. That code is pretty long you know. It's
all due to the way genetic material is passed down. Mendel experimented on
this. I just don't buy the species changing into an entirely different
species. Scientists have not proved it to my knowledge and I doubt they
ever will. On the other hand, I have seen proof that the Bible is true and
inspired by a higher source which has yet to be overturned. So, I'll stick
with that for now!
Das Monkey
> On the other hand, I have seen proof that the Bible is true
where?
*************************************************
Http://www.DasMonkey.Com
Even Better than sliced Bread
*************************************************
This message brought to you by Bollocks Inc.
*************************************************
*************************************************
Greedo
"Jay M" <anon...@noone.com> wrote in message
news:9evvao$q39$1...@bn2.blue.net...
>
>
> > > > Just look at this newsgroup! There's a LOT of people who just can't
> > stomach
> > > > the thought that we came from a prehistoric ape.
>
> Personally, it's not the inability to stomach the thought as much as the
> absurdity. For instance, according to natural selection as I understand
it,
> the strong propagate and the weak die off. If that is the case, why are
> there still monkeys running around? I thought they were supposed to die
off
> and be replaced. And if there are still monkeys (further down the chain
and
> less developed) why aren't there still a bunch of (more developed)
> monkey-men (other than the pres =) ) running around? It doesn't seem
> probable.
Humans did not evolve from apes.
"Apes" (all kinds of apes, monkeys etc.) and humans have a recent common
ancestor. By recent I mean that in relative terms, ie more recent than the
comman ancestor between mice and men.
You have to realise that 'strongest', 'fittest' etc. are all relative terms.
Monkeys are better adapted to live in trees. So in areas where there were
many trees, monkeys evolved as they were forced to live in these trees.
Another group of this common ancestor would have lived in a different
area(or moved to it for one reason or another) and developed different
features based on their interraction of themselves with environment.
The above example is grossly simplified, but it should dispose of a couple
of popular misconceptions.
>
> I definately agree that some small changes are possible within a species,
> like people are getting taller, and skin color, eye color and genetic
traits
> like that, but these are changes that take place within the species
because
> it was all in our genetic code to begin with. Even today, some races are
> taller than others on average. That code is pretty long you know. It's
> all due to the way genetic material is passed down. Mendel experimented
on
> this. I just don't buy the species changing into an entirely different
> species.
>Scientists have not proved it to my knowledge and I doubt they
> ever will.
Science has proven evolution. Read the page talkorigins.org to see ample
evidence. It may require some further reading, but the facts are there and
they are irrefutable, except if god for some reason placed all of the
evidence to trick people.
>On the other hand, I have seen proof that the Bible is true and
> inspired by a higher source which has yet to be overturned. So, I'll
stick
> with that for now!
I guarantee 100% that any evidence you can supply from the Bible can be
refuted by science. The Bible is not 100% true(nor 100%false)
The Bible implies the Earth is approx 6-8000 years old. THe Bibles
describes the Earth as flat. etc.
But it is nice to see that you have an open mind, the only way to let the
truth in.
Feel free to post any 'proof' you have that the Bible tells the truth, but
keep in mind that quoting the Bible in its own defense (ie. Genesis is true
because of John 3:16 etc.) is illogical and all Biblical evidence must be
backed up by solid logical or scientific data.
Daneel
<snip>
> absurdity. For instance, according to natural selection as I understand it,
> the strong propagate and the weak die off.
It is admirable that you say "as I understand it", that is,
acknowledging you could be wrong (as you are). According to
natural selection, in a *population* living in some *niche*,
those better suited at *reproduction* *in*that*niche* will
propagate and those less suited die off. The *reason* for
this is that what makes them better or less suited is
*inherited*. One way of being better suited could be being
stronger, but not the only one
> If that is the case, why are
> there still monkeys running around?
Because they are superbly suited for living in trees and
feeding on fruits/leaves growing up there; better than apes
like chimps or humans, better than their ancestors, and
better than the common ancestor of both monkeys and apes.
> I thought they were supposed to die off
> and be replaced. And if there are still monkeys (further down the chain and
> less developed)
You probably learned some really dumbed-down version of
evolutionary history, one which says "monkeys" didn't
change but humans did since we separated. But no, that's
not true - present-day humans and monkeys are equally
'evolved', but evolved in different direction after
separation to populate *different niches*.
> why aren't there still a bunch of (more developed)
> monkey-men (other than the pres =) ) running around? It doesn't seem
> probable.
Other "monkey-men" were almost surely driven to extinction
by more modern humans. But, I must note, there were long
periods of time two or more species existed, just not in
the same place (robust Australopithecines and early Homo,
later archaic Homo sapiens and one to three modern Homo
erectuses, then the last Homo erectus and Homo sapiens
sapiens and Homo s. neanderthalensis).
> I definately agree that some small changes are possible within a species,
> like people are getting taller, and skin color, eye color and genetic traits
> like that, but these are changes that take place within the species because
> it was all in our genetic code to begin with.
First, all natural selection is taking place within a
species. Second, you're dead wrong about 'it being in our
genetic code to begin with'. It comes from mutations. The
variants are geographically constrained. Some variants are
recent adaptations, like facial fat tissues for eskimos,
who OTOH haven't yet acquired the white skin of other,
older artic people. Some new variants can be traced down
to the very mutation, like the cholesterol-resistance
mutation that appeared in an Italian village some 200
years ago.
BTW, I don't know if 'it was all in our genetic code to
begin with' reflects a biblical literarist position, but
if yes, you should know that some genes have more versions
than people on Noah's ship.
> Even today, some races are
> taller than others on average. That code is pretty long you know. It's
> all due to the way genetic material is passed down. Mendel experimented on
> this.
These are nice words, but what do you mean? Probably
Mendel's discovery of recessive genes that get expressed
only when inherited from both parents? Or what?
> I just don't buy the species changing into an entirely different
> species.
What does "entirely different" mean? If this was some
reference to speciation (that is, species separation),
then, wheter you buy it or not, it was observed multiple
times. With bacteria, it was even done in laboratory (one
round species separating into a flat surface-loving and
a rugged base-loving species).
> Scientists have not proved it to my knowledge and I doubt they
> ever will. On the other hand, I have seen proof that the Bible is true and
> inspired by a higher source which has yet to be overturned. So, I'll stick
> with that for now!
"Inspired by a higher source". Does that mean you have to
take it all literally?
see you
Daneel [a#323 | U. of Ediacara student #000666]
! DO NOT send emails to my DejaNews adress, but to !
! "ustokos!cs.elte.hu", after replacing "!" with "@". !
************************************************************
"Ever tried. Ever failed.
Never mind. Try again.
Fail better." _Salman Rushdie_
feathersiron
sides have evidence, but since no one happened to catch the beginning of the
world on video tape, there is no proof.
feathersiron
newsgroup. Evolution is not fact, it is only theory. Most people don't
realize this, b/c we have been indoctrinated with it, and other theories are
generally not discussed in public schools.
Have you read The Collapse of Evolution by Scott Huse? Sounds like you may
have. If you have not, you will find it quite interesting.
And for those of you who will inevitably flame him for this - I suggest you
read it too. No point in arguing your opinion unless you are well informed
about both sides.
Lisa Gardner
> Jay M wrote:
> <snip>
> > Personally, it's not the inability to stomach the thought as much as the
> > absurdity. For instance, according to natural selection as I
> >understand it,
> > the strong propagate and the weak die off.
>
> It is admirable that you say "as I understand it", that is,
> acknowledging you could be wrong (as you are). According to
> natural selection, in a *population* living in some *niche*,
> those better suited at *reproduction* *in*that*niche* will
> propagate and those less suited die off. The *reason* for
> this is that what makes them better or less suited is
> *inherited*. One way of being better suited could be being
Also: you're dealing here with, as I see it, characteristics
*within* a certain environment.
How much of our (even our 'natural' environment) is manipulated?
To what extent is it maniuplated, by whom, and how? We don't know
the answers to any of these questions and any attempt we make
at giving an answer at this point, is based on assumptions.
'Gods', or something like gods, could easily come into play here -
this thing/these beings would be something that operates outside
the realm of our awareness, like the programmer who programs
a role-playing game dynamically or something like that, but who is
'not visible' to the characters in the role-playing game.
Evolution/natural selection happening within our whole 'scheme',
that which we can perceive, doesn't in and of itself negate the possibility
that our enviroment, and us, are manipulated. We might very well
be. We can't prove that we are not. It is a possibility.
Lisa
Tom
"feathersiron" stated..."
>
>Both sides need to know this: Evidence is not the same as proof. Both
>sides have evidence, but since no one happened to catch the beginning of the
>world on video tape, there is no proof.
>
"Both sides?
Which both sides are you talking about?
I presume that evolutionary biology is one of them. What is
the other one? The idea that one god killed his opponent, and
formed the animals out of the slain god's bones?
Surely you don't mean "creationism", for that doesn't have
anything to say. There is no "Who, What, Where, When, Why or
How" about it.
I suspect that you are talking about "creationism", for one
of the marks of "creationism" is that because it doesn't have
anything to offer, all it can do is toss out all knowledge ---
"nobody happened to catch ... on videotape". Did anybody
happen to catch the storming of the Bastille on videotape? Did
anybody catch WWII on videotape? Did anybody catch *any* war
on videotape (and don't tell me about videotape of *part* of
the Gulf War ... I want the whole thing, or you don't have
"proof" that there was a whole Gulf War).
"Creationists" show their true colors by denying everything
factual ... because it doesn't come up to their standards of
"proof". They tacitly admit that the evidence for evolution is
so overwhelming that they have to resort to this kind of
absurdity.
"Creationism" has nothing to offer, no evidence, they won't
even tell us what the words they use *mean*; much less putting
them together in a coherent story, much less offering evidence,
not even telling us what they would think of as evidence.
Thank you for confirming, once again, that there is "no
there, there" in "creationism".
Tom
Lisa Gardner
> <snip>
> > Personally, it's not the inability to stomach the thought as much as the
> > absurdity. For instance, according to natural selection as I understand it,
> > the strong propagate and the weak die off.
>
> It is admirable that you say "as I understand it", that is,
> acknowledging you could be wrong (as you are). According to
> natural selection, in a *population* living in some *niche*,
> those better suited at *reproduction* *in*that*niche* will
> propagate and those less suited die off. The *reason* for
> this is that what makes them better or less suited is
> *inherited*. One way of being better suited could be being
I left something out in my last post, and it is this:
if it is the characteristics that promote survivial within a certain
environment that are the characteristics that get selected for
according to the theory of natural selection, then certain characteristics
could be 'aimed for' by the manipulation of the environment in such
a way that those characteristics are the most likely to be chosen for.
This means: were there beings who could manipulate our 'reality',
then they could influence our long term human course of development
by altering the environment in which we live in such a way that
those characteristics that they would like to see us develop, are
pretty much necessary in order for us to survive in that environment.
Then over the long term, the characteristics that they have arranged
our environment to perpetuate and bring forth in human evolution,
would be selected for.
No one can really prove that such being do not exist. It is also
probably true that no one can prove that such beings *do* exist.
It's also true that no one can really say to me, 'It is impossible
that such beings exist'.
Lisa
mmmm... SUV's... commercials... TV... radio... more stuff... more
stuff... need to buy more things... need to buy more things... my
descendents will be the perfect consumers, unable to live without
the products that get provided by... who?
Lance Carter
> This is pop, it's not opera! ;-)
> > -Floyd
>
> Are you fucking nuts? Pop? REM? Brittany Spheres is pop. REM is a window to
> the eternal. Get your head out of your ass or at least your ears.
>
I beg to differ. Britney's spheres are *my* window to the eternal. I
agree, however, that it's an understatement to say that REM's music is
much more artistic.
Lance
feathersiron
1. Surely you know I wasn't serious about the videotape thing.
2. You're overgeneralizing about creationists. Yes, there are some who
don't use science or evidence to argue their point. But there are some who
do. Did I slam evolutionists? Why are you slamming creationists? I'm sure
no one wants to read about this argument, b/c it gets seriously tedious, and
it has nothing to do with R.E.M.. All I'm asking is that you try to respect
other points of view by really trying to find out about *all* sides. That
goes for any issue.
3. I don't understand why you keep putting the word creationist in
quotations.
4. I *really* didn't want to start a huge creation vs. evolution argument
here. I apologize to everyone if you think I did.
5. I'm done now.
Tom
"feathersiron" stated..."
I presume you're talking about me.
1. It's hard to tell when someone is joking, and when someone is
serious, in an anti-evolutionary debate. Surely people have said
in all seriousness, "How do you know. Where you there?"
2. I have not seen anybody produce a "creationist" theory, much
less evidence for such a theory. Unless you count things like
the pagan myths of origins. I will respect a point of view when
there is a point of view to respect. And I have tried to find
out.
3. Because many people think that "creationism" refers to belief
in the Creator.
4. If you don't want to start something, don't speak out in a
public forum.
5. Unfortunately, "creationism" will stay on.
Tom
Jon Cornell
>
>where?
On the corner of Fuck Me in the Ass.
Jon
Duncan Armstrong
> like people are getting taller, and skin color, eye color and genetic
traits
> like that, but these are changes that take place within the species
because
> it was all in our genetic code to begin with. Even today, some races are
> taller than others on average. That code is pretty long you know. It's
> all due to the way genetic material is passed down. Mendel experimented
on
> this. I just don't buy the species changing into an entirely different
> species. Scientists have not proved it to my knowledge and I doubt they
> ever will. On the other hand, I have seen proof that the Bible is true
and
> inspired by a higher source which has yet to be overturned. So, I'll
stick
> with that for now!
>
By its very definition, the notion of God is beyond scientific proof or
disproof.
Religion exists outside of the realm of science. Science is nothing but a
system, a set of rules by which we are able to make sense of the world
around us. Science involves making observations, making hypotheses based on
those observations, testing those hypotheses in a controled fashion such
that the tests may be repeated by others, and subsequently solidifying the
hypotheses into theories. The theories hold - not as proven dogma, but as
"best guess" explanations - until subsequent observations disprove them.
That is all science is.
Creationism does not follow this system, and is therefore not science.
Religion is completely removed from this; it is based on *faith* - the
belief in something beyond that which we can observe directly. I'm not a
theologian, nor am I an expert on the Bible or Christianity, but from what I
understand, God does not want his existance to be proven as that would
remove the need for faith, and faith is what God wants most from his
children.
In short, science and religion are completely separate, and in their purest
forms, neither necessarily excludes the other. That is why I have the
greatest respect and admiration for faith, but do not believe creationism
should be taught in schools - it's simply not science.
By the way, for those of you who still haven doubts about evolution, I urge
you to read 'The Blind Watch Maker' by Richard Dawkins. It is the most
thorough, well-reasoned, and entertaining defence of evolution I've ever
read. It makes for a great read and is unendingly fascinating.
And once you're done with that, I urge you even more heartily to pick up a
copy of 'The Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy' by Douglas Adams, may he
rest in peace. Trust me when I say, you'll never be the same again.
Cheers,
Dunc
GregEggs & Ham
-
GregEggs & Ham
"Jon Cornell" <j...@chiasmus.reno.nv.us> wrote in message
news:3b143690$1...@news.greatbasin.net...
seaotter
> absurdity.
Whoa, Never heard an argument from personal incredulity before.
> For instance, according to natural selection as I understand it,
> the strong propagate and the weak die off.
As I understand this you don't understand evolution. That the most fit
reproduce better than the less fit is by definition true. Now perhaps you
don't know what fitness is.
> If that is the case, why are
> there still monkeys running around? I thought they were supposed to die
off
> and be replaced.
Monkeys, which aren't our ancestors, do the monkey thing better than we do.
Perhaps that's why our ancestors decided to head for the ground.
> And if there are still monkeys (further down the chain and
> less developed) why aren't there still a bunch of (more developed)
> monkey-men (other than the pres =) ) running around? It doesn't seem
> probable.
Modern monkeys, as well as every other living organism, are just as evolved
as we are.
Snip the bit about evolution happening but not from one species to another.
>Scientists have not proved it to my knowledge and I doubt they
> ever will.
Speciation has been directly observed many times. I don't know what standard
of proof your using ,but evolution and specifically speciation has pasted
the standard of reasonable doubt decades ago.
> On the other hand, I have seen proof that the Bible is true and
> inspired by a higher source which has yet to be overturned. So, I'll
stick
> with that for now!
This is the real answer. You like the Bible. I can respect that, but don't
play scientist. Your out of your sandbox.
seaotter
feathersiron
Hey, I liked your post, and it made me think of a quote my uncle/english
teacher once told me. You'll probably disagree, and but I'm just throwing
it in b/c I think it's interesting. I believe it was Einstein who said it.
I'm not going to quote though, b/c I don't know for sure. (If anyone can
confirm, please do)
It went something like this:
Religion without science is blind.
Science without religion is lame.
Brian O'Neill
news:9evvao$q39$1...@bn2.blue.net...
> Personally, it's not the inability to stomach the thought as much as the
> absurdity.
Or the inability to understand it.
> For instance, according to natural selection as I understand it,
> the strong propagate and the weak die off.
You need more understanding then. This is but a single mechanism of
evolution.
> If that is the case, why are
> there still monkeys running around? I thought they were supposed to die
off
> and be replaced.
This only shows your ignorance on the subject matter. If you wish to learn,
I'll waste my time on showing how you're wrong. If not, I won't waste my
time, though I'd bet others have already pointed out your errors anyway.
> And if there are still monkeys (further down the chain and
> less developed) why aren't there still a bunch of (more developed)
> monkey-men (other than the pres =) ) running around? It doesn't seem
> probable.
What exactly do you know about what is "probable?" It may not seem
"probable" to you, but your perceptions are not the issue here, fortunately.
> I definately agree that some small changes are possible within a species,
> like people are getting taller, and skin color, eye color and genetic
traits
> like that, but these are changes that take place within the species
because
> it was all in our genetic code to begin with. Even today, some races are
> taller than others on average. That code is pretty long you know. It's
> all due to the way genetic material is passed down. Mendel experimented
on
> this. I just don't buy the species changing into an entirely different
> species.
Whether you "buy" it or not is irrelevant. Speciation has been observed.
Repeatedly.
> Scientists have not proved it to my knowledge and I doubt they
> ever will.
Scientists don't "prove" anything, since "proof" is a math concept.
Scientists have, however, shown much evidence, including directly observed
evidence, that speciation happens.
> On the other hand, I have seen proof that the Bible is true and
> inspired by a higher source which has yet to be overturned. So, I'll
stick
> with that for now!
Please do share this "proof."
-Brian
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, two weeks, six days, 10 hours, 15 minutes and 30
seconds.
16617 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,077.14.
Extra life saved: 8 weeks, 1 day, 16 hours, 45 minutes.
See my Sig File FAQ: http://pages.prodigy.net/briank.o/SigFAQ.htm
Brian O'Neill
news:JtQQ6.39$lQ1....@jekyl.ab.tac.net...
Evolution is a fact and a theoiry. Did you read the FAQ on the TO site
about this? Do you have any idea what a scientific theory is?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
> Most people don't
> realize this, b/c we have been indoctrinated with it, and other theories
are
> generally not discussed in public schools.
Please describe a "theory" that competes with evolution, offer the evidence
that shows it plausible and explain why you feel it is "generally not
discussed" in public schools.
Either that or admit that there is no such thing and you're confusing
wishful thinking with scientific knowledge.
> Have you read The Collapse of Evolution by Scott Huse? Sounds like you
may
> have. If you have not, you will find it quite interesting.
Yes, Computer Scientists are certainly qualified and well-versed in
evolution.
> And for those of you who will inevitably flame him for this - I suggest
you
> read it too. No point in arguing your opinion unless you are well
informed
> about both sides.
I have read a ton of Creationist rhetoric. Why don't you tell us why tales
of the Bombardier Beetle seemed convincing to you? Has the fact that the
basis of the book, that evolution violates natural laws of thermodynamics,
has been thoroughly debunked and those who did the debunking can show you
the math if you'd like?
Can you tell me in what context the following quote was made in:
"Any theory of orgins can not be a scientific fact, for it cannot be
tested."
That is attributed to Huse. I am being charitable and thinking that it
might be taken out of context. If it's not and that is actually how he
feels on the subject, he really should go back to his computer science
background, because he is painfully ignorant about what can and "cannot be
tested."
-Brian
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, two weeks, six days, 16 hours, 18 minutes and 28
seconds.
16627 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,078.40.
Extra life saved: 8 weeks, 1 day, 17 hours, 35 minutes.
Brian O'Neill
news:a317c4b9.01052...@posting.google.com...
It is a possibility that the world was created last Thursday with all of our
memories intact and with the appearance of old age.
It is a possibility that everything is controlled by garden gnomes that live
in my kitchen cupboard.
Would you say that these facets should be included in science? Does
excluding them make the conclusions without them bad science? How would you
include garden gnomes and "Last Thursdayism" as valid science?
-Brian
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, two weeks, six days, 16 hours, 22 minutes and 53
seconds.
16627 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,078.41.
Lisa Gardner
Yes. The problem as I see it is that there is a lot of very basic level
things that most people who talk about 'science' and the doing of science,
might reasonably question and regard as assumptions that they decide to
make or not to make, and upon which the whole process of 'observation'
is based.
different sets of basic level assumptions might give a different meaning
to the word 'observation'.
But all of this happens outside of sciene. I don't know that it is something
that science could even deal with. I don't know that these things that I would
call 'basic level assumptions' upon which the whole process of observation
is based (IMHO), are even 'falsifiable', if you want to go with Popper's scheme
(which I have only read a small amount on, but I think I understand the basic
idea.)
So maybe they must be accepted as axioms, or *not* accepted as axioms.
It seems to me that most people who talk about 'science' don't really
do a whole hell of a lot of thinking about what is or might be, essentially,
a very deep level 'assumption' that the body or deep mind makes - and
they take these assumptions to be irrefutable characteristics of reality.
And they don't talk to much about what 'reality' is either.
>Creationism does not follow this system, and is therefore not science.
And? Religion may not ever have been trying to be or to compete with
science. Religion and spirituality may be things that deal more with the
larger picture that includes within it what I have called above, 'the deep
level basic assumptions' we make about 'what reality is'.
>Religion is completely removed from this; it is based on *faith* - the
>belief in something beyond that which we can observe directly. I'm not a
>theologian, nor am I an expert on the Bible or Christianity, but from what I
>understand, God does not want his existance to be proven as that would
>remove the need for faith, and faith is what God wants most from his
>children.
Well, I wouldn't agree with that, but... how would he prove himself? IMHO
there are lots of big things out there in the universe that can do lots of really
neat and impressive magick tricks to impress the hell out of anyone who
is 'locked in the conference room'. So were this to be the measure by
which 'god' proved himself to people, they'd be up shit creek, because
they could be fooled by any big celestial guy who came by and did
a few cool big card tricks for them.
And IMHO not all the guys who do that are nice guys, and some of them
are probably con artists.
>In short, science and religion are completely separate, and in their purest
>forms, neither necessarily excludes the other. That is why I have the
>greatest respect and admiration for faith, but do not believe creationism
>should be taught in schools - it's simply not science.
Okay. What about logic and the differentiation between the things that
can be proven within a system and the things which cannot, but must be
taken as axiomatic and as foundational to the system - by *choice*. Many
people in the world these days confuse the two, IMHO- including people
on both sides of the argument that you're talking about here.
but nobody is ready for that yet, really. 'harder to wake galileo' and all
that. I hope I am not reading too much into mstipe's words here.
>By the way, for those of you who still haven doubts about evolution, I urge
>you to read 'The Blind Watch Maker' by Richard Dawkins. It is the most
>thorough, well-reasoned, and entertaining defence of evolution I've ever
>read. It makes for a great read and is unendingly fascinating.
>
>And once you're done with that, I urge you even more heartily to pick up a
>copy of 'The Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy' by Douglas Adams, may he
>rest in peace. Trust me when I say, you'll never be the same again.
Hah... I like that attitude... :)
Lisa
Lisa Gardner
Yes it is.
>It is a possibility that everything is controlled by garden gnomes that live
>in my kitchen cupboard.
Yes. and the blue faeries on my bathroom mirror.
>Would you say that these facets should be included in science? Does
>excluding them make the conclusions without them bad science?
No.
>How would you
>include garden gnomes and "Last Thursdayism" as valid science?[...]
I would exclude them by virtue of the dep level assumptions which I choose,
or don't choose, to take as axiomatic. How would you exclude them? You've
done so here, so tell me how and why you have done so. Also, what are
the assumptions you've made that led you to conclude that these things
aren't so?
This could lead to an interesting discussion.
Lisa
Lisa Gardner
I did not think of this point until just now:
Let me say this: if the gnomes and the faeries decide to rebel one
day and so what you and I agree is 'reality' right now just goes wango
as a result, I might be able to handle it better than you - because your
basic level system of assumptions seems to include statementsx
something along the lines of, 'faeries and gnomes cannot exist'
and 'reality is pretty much just the way I see it, and I don't need to
question that assumption at all'.
If this happens then I'll look at my basic level set of assumptions
and say, 'whoa - looks like something might need to be changed
here. What is it? Better look at formulating a new set of assumptions'
What will you do? You don't seem to me to be questioning or
examining at all, your own beliefs about 'what reality is' - and I
mean: those very deep level assumptions that exist right now
*outside of the domain of scientific endeavor* - those assumptions
that *underlay* empirical observation and experience. That underlay
it IMHO, that is.
I understand the mechanisms of science and I can do science myself
if I want to. I can function within the scientific thought scheme and I
can reason according to your set of basic assumptions. I can meet
you on your own ground if I have to do that. I just don't think that your
ground is as irrefutably constant a part of 'reality' as you seem to think
it is. I can play your game - but I can also play outside of it. Can you?
If we have an apocalypse or something 'reality changing' or something
like that, then you are basically fucked up the ass big time (in a bad way,
that is). I stand a chance of getting through it.
That is, basically, one of my reasons for thinking the way I do and considering
the things I do.
And also and besides, it's fun and interesting. I like doing it. It helps
me to cope.
Lisa
Jon Cornell
our
>>memories intact and with the appearance of old age.
>>
>>It is a possibility that everything is controlled by garden gnomes that
live
>>in my kitchen cupboard.
>>
>>Would you say that these facets should be included in science? Does
>>excluding them make the conclusions without them bad science? How would
you
>>include garden gnomes and "Last Thursdayism" as valid science?[...]
We can't exclude these possibilites, really. However, having a belief
doesn't mean that we should be closed to other possibilties - and,
conversely, being open to all possibilities doesn't mean we shouldn't have a
belief.
Consider the consequences of the two extremes. A closed mind with a set
belief will experience unbelivable cognitive dissonance and turmoil when
their belief is contradicted by apparent reality. For example, a
conservative who believes homosexuality is deviant behavior caused by abuse
will be in for a world of hurt if they happen to have a gay child. My best
friend is going through that right now. Similarly, many creationists cling
to the belief that man was created exactly as we are, in the face of all
overwhelming evidence, and many "scientific-minded" people, confronted with
the rapture, would deny that it was happening, decide it was some kind of
elaborate hoax or hallucination, and deny themselves the chance to ascend
into heaven.
But, on the other hand, leaving yourself open to all possibilities is
equally destructive, because it's impossible to make a plan for yourself
without premises to act on. I'm reminded of the late Douglas Adam's
character, "The Ruler of the Universe", who was so caught up in the notion
that everything was subjective that he refused to even make the statement
that his cat must eat to survive, or that his cat was even a cat, or that it
even existed.
I think that one of the finest mantras in life, equal in its profundity to
"Judge not, lest ye be judged", was recently penned by Thom Yorke of
Radiohead: "I might be wrong." Believe in something, but always acknowledge
that you might be wrong. In fact, I think I just might get a T-shirt
printed with those words on it.
Jon
BrgmtNVtvr
>I'm not going to quote though, b/c I don't know for sure. (If anyone can
>confirm, please do)
>It went something like this:
>
>Religion without science is blind.
I can't confirm it, but if he did say it, I seriously doubt what Einstein had
in mind for religion having a place in science involved fundamentalists who
want to undermine all science education.
Fundamentalist Christians in America have this nasty habit of always thinking
their religion is soooooo terribly oppressed. So they demand things like school
prayer, creationism, "faith based federal funding" for social programs, etc. --
never really grasping that if these things are opened up to their own narrow
view, they will necessarily, by fairness and great globs of lawsuits, have to
be opened up to everyone else's narrow view, too, ironically doing the most
promotional good for faiths they find utterly reprehensible (which is,
basically, any faith other than their own). Jerry Falwell was in an orgasm of
delight at Bush's "faith based funding" crapola until Moslems, Jews, Coptics,
Buddhists ... Wiccans ... Satanists ... (ad infinitum) joined him in his
eyerolls of ecstasy. Wait a minute -- *these* guys will get federal money, too?
Holy crap, maybe we better rethink this ...
And that's the problem with "creationism." When they say "creationism," they of
course mean the Bible's version of creation, which is but one creation story
out of literally thousands that human societies have come up with over the
ages. The Bible's own Genesis version isn't even "a" version, it's several
versions patched together, which contradict each other.
The argument that Biblical creation should be taught alongside science because
it can't be proven it's *not* the truth is all fine and dandy until you realize
that means those other thousands of versions should have to be included, as
well. Just to pick one, there's an African Bushmen creation story that says the
earth came into being when the giant god Bumba swallowed some dirt and it
churned in his stomach until he barfed it all up in the form of the world.
Which is entirely stupid to anyone who is not an African Bushman. But you can't
prove it didn't happen! Bushmen "creation scientists" might even offer up the
"supporting evidence" that since hydrochloric acid exists on earth and is a
known component of human vomit, the Bumba story must be Truth. So I want Bumba
in America's public schools, too! We don't want to miss *any* possibilities
here, astronomically remote and contrary to logic and sensibility though they
may be, do we?
The Bible can have its say in America's all-faiths-taxpayer-funded public
schools just as soon as all the happily tax-exempt Christian fundy churches are
willing to give equal time to evolution from the pulpit, just in the spirit of
a little "fairness." And I don't see that happening anytime soon. --Bergie
Daneel
<snippage>
Fourth point first:
> 4. I *really* didn't want to start a huge creation vs. evolution argument
> here. I apologize to everyone if you think I did.
Well, you *did* start it, even if you weren't conscious
about it. Trying to stay out of a debate by staying in the
middle can implicitely grant one side's claim:
> 2. You're overgeneralizing about creationists. Yes, there are some who
> don't use science or evidence to argue their point. But there are some who
> do. Did I slam evolutionists? Why are you slamming creationists? I'm sure
> no one wants to read about this argument, b/c it gets seriously tedious, and
> it has nothing to do with R.E.M.. All I'm asking is that you try to respect
> other points of view by really trying to find out about *all* sides. That
> goes for any issue.
Basically, you're equivocating in a subject you do not
know about (and probably are bored of). You see two sides,
"evolutionists" and "creationists" - with that, you
basically fall for the rhetoric of creationists, who
gleefully abuse the naivity of people following the Golden
Rule.
Yes, you're right, we should try to find out about *all*
sides - something you haven't done. 'All sides' includes
other religion-based pseudosciences, like the statism of
Hindu and Hare Krishna origin, or the alien influence
from Behe to scientology. Finding out would include
learning about what so-called creation scientists (and
their rivals in the other sides) actually claim, what
their actual credit is (like all the false titles they
claim). Finding out would also include learning what an
'evolutionist' is (basically, every scientist in a field
whose findings don't fit into a creationist's worldview,
including mine, astronomy). Looking for all sides would
also includie looking beyond the USA, that way, you would
have learnt that creationism is a US phenomenon not taken
seriously by other people (like most of us Europeans).
I agree with you to respect a creationist's view, but
only if s//he says it is his/her faith; I don't respect
it when s/he parades it as science.
Jon Cornell
>also includie looking beyond the USA, that way, you would
>have learnt that creationism is a US phenomenon not taken
>seriously by other people (like most of us Europeans).
Maybe - and this is just a suggestion - you should consider that both the
U.S. and Europe are really enormous places, each with hundreds of millions
of people.
That which holds true in Italy does not hold true in Germany. That which
holds true in Virginia does not hold true in Hawaii.
Or so I've read. Fact is, I've never been to Italy, Germany, Virginia, or
Hawaii. Have you?
Saying that the U.S. has a single consciousness is a mistake made by
hundreds of non-Americans every day; somehow, they've managed to pick up the
belief that all Americans are white Prostestants who are fanatic about only
three things: religion, Hollywood, and rock music. Somehow, they've managed
to pick up the belief that not a single one of the three or four hundred
million people in this country care about what's happening outside its
borders, despite the fact that a signficant number of us trace our roots
back to the five other continents within the last century. And, for some
reason, Europeans on the web seem to believe that all Americans share the
same politics as their government; that we believe that Israel should be
armed, China censured, and Cuba embargoed.
But to hear you talking about how Europe has a single religious
consciousness - well, that's just strange. Surveys show that the religious
philosophies of Ireland and Germany are as dissimilar as any two regions can
be.
Jon
Daneel
<snip>
> newsgroup.
Maybe not on rec.music.rem (which I suppose is where you
post), but creationists are quite adamant about spreading
their 'message' around USENET. They don't need that much
'balls', and the martyrdom you recite is one of the myths
they spread.
BTW, what started this thread was my question about a
line in "Man On The Moon": "Darwin had the galls to ask".
> Evolution is not fact, it is only theory.
Wrong. Evolution is an observable fact (i.e., you see
species changing all around). A "theory of evolution"
(like common descent, or natural selection, or genetic
drift, or punctuated equilibrum, or lamarckism, or
saltationism) is a theory. A theory, in science, is not
something 'less than a fact', it is something different -
something that orders, explains, and predicts facts. In
that, the aforementioned theories of evolution are no
different from theories of motion like Newton's and
Einstein's.
> Most people don't
> realize this, b/c we have been indoctrinated with it, and other theories are
> generally not discussed in public schools.
From what I know about the education system in your
country, you basically learn a minimum about science, and
near to nothing about evolution. "Indoctrination" sounds
suspicious (given statistics that 48% of your countrymen
is a young Earth biblical creationist); but that about
other theories could be right. I think even an extensive
presentation of evolution is incomplete without showing
Lamarckism, multi-Flood hypotheses, catastrophism, and
saltationism among the defeated theories, and the reason
why natural selection, unlike Darwin's other theory
(common descent) did not win until the 1930's (i.e.,
nondigital genetics).
> Have you read The Collapse of Evolution by Scott Huse? Sounds like you may
> have. If you have not, you will find it quite interesting.
>
> And for those of you who will inevitably flame him for this - I suggest you
> read it too. No point in arguing your opinion unless you are well informed
> about both sides.
I am curious how well-informed you are about the other
sideS. Have you read anything from Richard Dawkins? Or
from Michael Behe, supporter of intelligent panspermia?
Or Forbidden Archeology (whose author I had the pleasure
to argue with)? (If you didn't, the first is a modern
biologist, the second a microbiologist who accepts
evolution but thinks some cell features must have been
designed by some intelligence, and Michael Cremo is a
Hare Krishna who looks for evidence that all species
exist unchanged for billions of years.)
If you are really interested, go to talk.origins, and
visit its website www.talkorigins.org.
Daneel
<snip>
> I left something out in my last post, and it is this:
>
> if it is the characteristics that promote survivial within a certain
> environment that are the characteristics that get selected for
> according to the theory of natural selection, then certain characteristics
> could be 'aimed for' by the manipulation of the environment in such
> a way that those characteristics are the most likely to be chosen for.
That's how we do artifical selection with domestic animals
and plants. (Well - until now, until the arrival of genetic
engineering.)
<snip>
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
> > Jay M wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Personally, it's not the inability to stomach the thought as
> > > much as the absurdity. For instance, according to natural
> > > selection as I understand it, the strong propagate and the
> > > weak die off.
> >
> > It is admirable that you say "as I understand it", that is,
> > acknowledging you could be wrong (as you are). According to
> > natural selection, in a *population* living in some *niche*,
> > those better suited at *reproduction* *in*that*niche* will
> > propagate and those less suited die off. The *reason* for
> > this is that what makes them better or less suited is
> > *inherited*. One way of being better suited could be being
> > stronger, but not the only one [...]
>
> Also: you're dealing here with, as I see it, characteristics
> *within* a certain environment.
The way I said it, *in*that*niche* :)
> How much of our (even our 'natural' environment) is manipulated?
> To what extent is it maniuplated, by whom, and how? We don't know
> the answers to any of these questions and any attempt we make
> at giving an answer at this point, is based on assumptions.
>
> 'Gods', or something like gods, could easily come into play here -
> this thing/these beings would be something that operates outside
> the realm of our awareness, like the programmer who programs
> a role-playing game dynamically or something like that, but who is
> 'not visible' to the characters in the role-playing game.
>
> Evolution/natural selection happening within our whole 'scheme',
> that which we can perceive, doesn't in and of itself negate the possibility
> that our enviroment, and us, are manipulated. We might very well
> be. We can't prove that we are not. It is a possibility.
Yes, it *is* a possibility. It is, AFAIK, the possibility
most Christians in the world (but not the USofA) believe
in.
Mr J R N Austin
On 30 May 2001, Jon Cornell wrote:
> >Looking for all sides would
> >also includie looking beyond the USA, that way, you would
> >have learnt that creationism is a US phenomenon not taken
> >seriously by other people (like most of us Europeans).
>
> But to hear you talking about how Europe has a single religious
> consciousness - well, that's just strange. Surveys show that the religious
> philosophies of Ireland and Germany are as dissimilar as any two regions can
> be.
I've never met a single European creationist, but I've `met' several
American ones. And he did say `most.'
Jez.
Jon Cornell
>American ones. And he did say `most.'
I don't know about Europeans, but I've met dozens of Filipino and Malaysian
creationists. And, considering that Vatican City is in Europe, I think it's
safe to say that European creationists are out there. I read a few surveys
a couple weeks ago that indicated that England is somewhat less religious
than America, that Germany is much less religious than either England or
America, and that Italy and Ireland are both extremely religious. I can't
say for sure if they were valid, because I didn't do them myself.
Jon
Daneel
>
> >Looking for all sides would
> >also includie looking beyond the USA, that way, you would
> >have learnt that creationism is a US phenomenon not taken
> >seriously by other people (like most of us Europeans).
>
> Maybe - and this is just a suggestion - you should consider that both the
> U.S. and Europe are really enormous places, each with hundreds of millions
> of people.
>
> That which holds true in Italy does not hold true in Germany. That which
> holds true in Virginia does not hold true in Hawaii.
>
> Or so I've read. Fact is, I've never been to Italy, Germany, Virginia, or
> Hawaii. Have you?
I've been to Italy and Germany (two years in the latter),
but not yet outside Europe. But, I can read the statistics
for every one of them (which I did). Now, as for something
I can only rely on personal experience; it seems I'm in a
small minority in Europe as well as Hungary in considering
creationism not a serious idea, but a serious threat
(i.e., I don't laugh at it, I see it as an 'export good').
> Saying that the U.S. has a single consciousness is a mistake made by
> hundreds of non-Americans every day;
...and one I didn't made above. (In case you were ticked
off by 'creationism is a US phenomenon', I meant it in
precisely the same manner as 'the ETA is a basque
phenomenon' or 'widow-burning is a Hindu phenomenon',
both of which refer to something connected to people whose
majority doesn't support it.)
> somehow, they've managed to pick up the
> belief that all Americans are white Prostestants who are fanatic about only
> three things: religion, Hollywood, and rock music.
Well, the stereotypes of Europeans about Americans are
very much diverse. That about religion is constrained to
intellectuals, a more general picture is of postreligious
amorality (a false perception based on - well - Hollywood
and TV, one reinforced by *our* pastors). Rock music? R&B
and rap, maybe. Being fanatic about *sex* is probably the
most common European stereotype (and the most laughable).
> Somehow, they've managed
> to pick up the belief that not a single one of the three or four hundred
> million people in this country care about what's happening outside its
> borders,
Sure, there are hundreds of Europeans who think like this.
But, millions of others know about your aid workers, or
read the books of cosmopolitan US authors.
> despite the fact that a signficant number of us trace our roots
> back to the five other continents within the last century.
Isn't that irrelevant? (I have a cousin in Florida who
left Hungary with 7, but almost forgot Hungarian, and
doesn't care about anything happening beyond the USA, so
we usually talk about American issues when he visits.
Likewise, I have relatives who care shit about anything
outside Hungary, except for joining the EU, despite our
ancestors in six other countries just five generations
back.)
> And, for some
> reason, Europeans on the web seem to believe that all Americans share the
> same politics as their government; that we believe that Israel should be
> armed, China censured, and Cuba embargoed.
Well, there are surely hundreds of such people, but there
are millions of Europeans who rather laughed about the
Florida debacle (thus knew of the parity), and at least
hundreds of thousands who know about the exceptionally
low voter turnouts.
> But to hear you talking about how Europe has a single religious
> consciousness - well, that's just strange.
I wrote "most of us Europeans", not "all of us", and I
didn't wrote anything about European religious opinions.
I wrote about creationism.
> Surveys show that the religious
> philosophies of Ireland and Germany are as dissimilar as any two regions can
> be.
Would that be true, it would still be irrelevant. (But,
the religious philosophies of say Iran and Thailand seem
more different to me.)
European religiousness is broadly grouped in three large
groups: those 'following their church', those 'religious
their own way', and atheists. The latter two are on the
increase in every country, but (in the last decades)
dramatically in Ireland (and Spain). In Ireland, the
first group is Catholic, and is much larger than in
Germany, except for around Dublin. In Germany, the first
group is dominant (and Catholic) in the south, the
second in the northeast, and the third in the east; but
in the latter two, the first group is mainly Protestant
and Islamist. In the first group in any region,
creationism is a minority opinion.
Daneel
>
> >I've never met a single European creationist, but I've `met' several
> >American ones. And he did say `most.'
>
> I don't know about Europeans, but I've met dozens of Filipino and Malaysian
> creationists. And, considering that Vatican City is in Europe, I think it's
> safe to say that European creationists are out there.
Shows how much you know. Catholics, by papal verdict, can
accept evolution, and should renounce literalism. You may
protest that what actual catholics believe is often
contrary to what the Church wants them to, but stats I've
seen nowhere showed support for literarism approaching
50%.
> I read a few surveys
> a couple weeks ago that indicated that England is somewhat less religious
> than America, that Germany is much less religious than either England or
> America, and that Italy and Ireland are both extremely religious. I can't
> say for sure if they were valid, because I didn't do them myself.
Your error is to confuse 'religious' with 'supports
creationism'. AFAIK that is by far not true even in the
US of A.
Jinx
I really should speak up for the scientists here.
When people discuss evolution v creation they do so either from a position
of poor scientic knowledge, fundamental religious views and usually both.
The original poster asked why if evolution was survivial of the fittest then
"how come there are still monkeys". In a nutshell this person has
demonstrated a crucial missunderstanding of biology. The "reason" why we
live with monkeys is not that we have always lived with monkeys, rather that
we share a common ancestor.
Thankfully Europe isn't dominated by right wing fundamentalist Chrsitians
with a lot of political power. To say that simply because the Vatican is in
Europe to support your view is incredible. I believe I'm right in saying
that in the late 1980's/early 1990's the Catholic church said that they were
both wrong about the Earth not being at the center of the solar system and
"that animals change"
Patrick
Duncan Armstrong
> Yes. The problem as I see it is that there is a lot of very basic level
> things that most people who talk about 'science' and the doing of science,
> might reasonably question and regard as assumptions that they decide to
> make or not to make, and upon which the whole process of 'observation'
> is based.
>
You're right that what we know as science is fundamentally based on
assumptions we make because we have to. Assumptions about the nature of
reality, of perception, of logic, of existance, and of ourselves. I agree
that too often these assumptions are made without enough thought on the
matter. Too many scientists do their work without having considered the
philosophy behind their "knowledge".
But it really is philosophy. These sorts of questions have to be asked on a
level outside the scope of science - necessarily so, due to the nature of
science. Therefore, those who study science shouldn't necessarily have to
worry about these things, as long as they accept that what they do is
fundamentally limited.
The problem with these philosophical issues is that by their very nature
it's impossible to really *know* their validity - it's impossible to know
whether or not we should be worrying about them. All we can really do is
ponder (something I'm very fond of doing, hehe).
Or, on the other hand, we can choose to ignore the possibilities and settle
upon a set of beliefs as our fundamental assumption. This is faith. Faith
allows us to step beyond the fundamental questions of existance and put our
trust in a higher being, or higher purpose.
Personally, I've always been a bit of a sceptic, and I've always seen faith
in general as a bit of a cop out (sort of, "oh I can't be bothered worrying
about the nature of things, so I'll just believe what this person in a funny
robe is telling me"). But that's just my personal opinion - one that could
easily change over time. And I never hold it against people who have faith
in one religion or another. Some of my best friends (and I really mean
*best* friends) have been deeply religious, and it was never an issue
between us.
Anyway, I've got an exam to revise for, so I'd better stop my ranting &
raving. Been good pondering with you,
Dunc
P.S. - My flatmate did a university course called 'Philosophy of Science'
this semester so I've heard ALL about this sort of thing, hehe.
Duncan Armstrong
> But, on the other hand, leaving yourself open to all possibilities is
> equally destructive, because it's impossible to make a plan for yourself
> without premises to act on. I'm reminded of the late Douglas Adam's
> character, "The Ruler of the Universe", who was so caught up in the notion
> that everything was subjective that he refused to even make the statement
> that his cat must eat to survive, or that his cat was even a cat, or that
it
> even existed.
>
I always thought he was one of the greatest characters in the book, even in
literature in general. I identify so well with him, and I do think he's the
ruler of the universe because of his great wisdom and insight. I don't
think he's a character to be pitied or ridiculed or even criticised - at
least in my opinion.
Lisa Gardner
If you retain the ability to act within a certain set of assumptions,
then leaving yourself open to all possibilities does not do this.
You can still retain assumptions - it's just that you can realize
that *they are assumptions*, and that different sets of assumptions
will yield different results.
People were once reluctant to consider the possibility that god
did not exist. Now they do consider that possibility. People were
once reluctant to consider the possibility that the earth orbited
around the sun. Now they do consider that a possibility.
People were once reluctant to consider that their own minds play
a bigger part in constructing what they call 'observed reality', then
has been thought previously. People still are reluctant to consider
that a possibility.
'Leaving yourself open to all possibilities' doesn't necessarily
leave one without premises to act upon. "leaving yourself open
to all possibilities' while at the same time demanding that any
premise that you are thinking about acting upon be one that can
stand up to scientific proof, or some sort of 'objective proof', and
*be proven* in some objective sense- *that* is something that
can leave you without any premises to act upon - because *nothing*
can be proven in any objective sense, to that extent.
You can act according to a set of assumptions/premises that
you have *consciously decided to adapt* for whatever reasons
you have decided to adapt them.
You can 'remain open to all possibilities' essentially and still
be a very, very efficient scientist - one who adapts the premises
of the scientific method, *for the purposes of doing science* and
makes use of them to work within that framework, but who considers
and plays with different sets of premises on his own time.
This isn't the easiest thing to do, and it is dangerous, but it is
possible to do it.
Lisa
Lisa Gardner
> feathersiron wrote:
> <snip>
> > I whole-heartedly agree. Also, I admire your balls to say this on a
> > newsgroup.
>
> Maybe not on rec.music.rem (which I suppose is where you
> post), but creationists are quite adamant about spreading
> their 'message' around USENET. They don't need that much
> 'balls', and the martyrdom you recite is one of the myths
> they spread.
>
> BTW, what started this thread was my question about a
> line in "Man On The Moon": "Darwin had the galls to ask".
>
> > Evolution is not fact, it is only theory.
>
What constitutes an 'observable fact' in your opinion, Daneel?
We actually *cannot* observe long term evolution of species
over time periods of a span that is longer than that or recorded
human history, actually - so we cannot verify that 'species have
changed' over that last ten million years or so.
We see them changing within the small time periods that a
human being can observe during his or her life and during the
course of recorded human history - and we make the assumption
that things worked the same way beforehand. We do this because
of bones thar we find, etc. But it *is* an assumption we make.
So far as I can see, beyond the span of a human lifetime or
recorded human history, long term evolution of species *is not*
an observable fact.
Unless you mean something different by the words 'observable
fact' here, than I am understanding you to mean.
Lisa
Jay M
Ok, obviously I'm no scientist. I'm more interested in studying the
scriptures.
I'm sure you would call Archeology a science, wouldn't you? Archeology has
proved many, many things in the Bible to be true, including things that
modern big heads said were complete bs until archeology said otherwise. It
forced them to change their tune. Archeology and scientific observation has
also "proved" that Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled long after they
were written. The way I see it, science and the Bible are entirely
compatible, especially when scientists stick to the facts. For instance,
the order of creation as written in Genesis goes along well with science, as
does Isa 40:22 for instance, although scientists of his day would have
called Isaiah a fool. Everyone knew the Earth was flat.
My question is, how is the explanation of our situation as found in the
Bible any less valid than modern scientific conjecture regarding the
evidence?
JM
I have a flaky news server please cc responses to
bedopug at yahoo.com
Thanks for your time and patience!
Yang
wrote:
>Jay M wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, I have seen proof that the Bible is true
>
>where?
The part that says insects have 4 legs (Lev 11:23), rabbits chew cuds
(Lev 11:5-6), and donkeys can talk (Num 22:30).
We now return you to reality.
David Jensen
"Jay M" <anon...@noone.com> wrote in <9f424r$drk$1...@bn2.blue.net>:
also mailed as requested.
>Ok, obviously I'm no scientist. I'm more interested in studying the
>scriptures.
Fine, as long as you see the distinction between scripture and the
scientific method. Some people hate having their scriptures tested.
>I'm sure you would call Archeology a science, wouldn't you? Archeology has
>proved many, many things in the Bible to be true, including things that
>modern big heads said were complete bs until archeology said otherwise. It
The Illiad was a good source, too.
>forced them to change their tune. Archeology and scientific observation has
>also "proved" that Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled long after they
>were written. The way I see it, science and the Bible are entirely
Some were, some were not. Tyre was never destroyed.
>compatible, especially when scientists stick to the facts. For instance,
>the order of creation as written in Genesis goes along well with science, as
Not really. The order of life is different, and light came after stars.
>does Isa 40:22 for instance, although scientists of his day would have
>called Isaiah a fool. Everyone knew the Earth was flat.
The earth's shape and its size were were known at least 2500 years ago.
I don't think the Bible really has a clear statement about cosmology. If
it does, then that says the earth is a big space tented over by a
"firmament". The vastness of the universe is never really discussed in
it.
>My question is, how is the explanation of our situation as found in the
>Bible any less valid than modern scientific conjecture regarding the
>evidence?
The Bible is not a scientific treatise. Some science was passable, some
was wrong--reflecting the limitations of knowledge of the day.
(grasshoppers do have six legs, bats aren't related to birds in any
meaningful way, Eve could not have been reformed from a rib).
Mr. PB
Blinded me with Science - - Thomas Dolby
Mr. PB
extra-terrestrial humanoid and non-humanoid species over a period of eons.
curt mitchell
as usual,
Curt Mitchell
feathersiron
Brian O'Neill
> > > Evolution is not fact, it is only theory.
> > Wrong. Evolution is an observable fact [...]
>
> What constitutes an 'observable fact' in your opinion, Daneel?
Evidence.
> We actually *cannot* observe long term evolution of species
> over time periods of a span that is longer than that or recorded
> human history, actually - so we cannot verify that 'species have
> changed' over that last ten million years or so.
You are familiar with fossils, maybe?
> We see them changing within the small time periods that a
> human being can observe during his or her life and during the
> course of recorded human history - and we make the assumption
> that things worked the same way beforehand. We do this because
> of bones thar we find, etc. But it *is* an assumption we make.
Here's a simple one for you: There are no human fossils found past a
certain age. Why is it that among all of the other hominid fossils we find,
we don't find any fully formed human fossils in with the rest? How come we
can see the line of descent from older to newer fossils and even to current
species? Please, if evolution is so faulty, do tell us your own expert
explanation for this observed fact?
> So far as I can see, beyond the span of a human lifetime or
> recorded human history, long term evolution of species *is not*
> an observable fact.
We have seen species evolve into other species, you know.
> Unless you mean something different by the words 'observable
> fact' here, than I am understanding you to mean.
Science matches the best theory with the observable data. Fossils are
observed. The fossil record, combined with everything else we do directly
observe, all points to evolution. If you can think of a better explanation
than evolution for the data we have, let's see it. If you don't, then
understand that you really don't have any ground to stand on.
-Brian
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, three weeks, 21 hours, 44 minutes and 31 seconds.
16676 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,084.53.
Extra life saved: 8 weeks, 1 day, 21 hours, 40 minutes.
See my Sig File FAQ: http://pages.prodigy.net/briank.o/SigFAQ.htm
Brian O'Neill
> >It is a possibility that the world was created last Thursday with all of
our
> >memories intact and with the appearance of old age.
> >
> >It is a possibility that everything is controlled by garden gnomes that
live
> >in my kitchen cupboard.
> >
> >Would you say that these facets should be included in science? Does
> >excluding them make the conclusions without them bad science? How would
you
> >include garden gnomes and "Last Thursdayism" as valid science?[...]
> I did not think of this point until just now:
>
> Let me say this: if the gnomes and the faeries decide to rebel one
> day and so what you and I agree is 'reality' right now just goes wango
> as a result, I might be able to handle it better than you - because your
> basic level system of assumptions seems to include statementsx
> something along the lines of, 'faeries and gnomes cannot exist'
> and 'reality is pretty much just the way I see it, and I don't need to
> question that assumption at all'.
It's irrelevant until they do, and since there's no evidence that they
exist, it makes it even more irrelevant.
However, you still might be wrong. When people who claimed they were
believers in UFOs being of alien origin had experiences that "proved" them
right, many of them became complete lunatics. Whereas, people who claimed
to not believe in UFOs, when they saw them, didn't freak out, and in fact
changed very little, only they they changed their views on the matter.
So, evidence bears your hypothesis to be wrong.
> If this happens then I'll look at my basic level set of assumptions
> and say, 'whoa - looks like something might need to be changed
> here. What is it? Better look at formulating a new set of assumptions'
> What will you do? You don't seem to me to be questioning or
> examining at all, your own beliefs about 'what reality is' - and I
> mean: those very deep level assumptions that exist right now
> *outside of the domain of scientific endeavor* - those assumptions
> that *underlay* empirical observation and experience. That underlay
> it IMHO, that is.
Guess what? That's exactly how scientists treat any new data.
> I understand the mechanisms of science and I can do science myself
> if I want to. I can function within the scientific thought scheme and I
> can reason according to your set of basic assumptions. I can meet
> you on your own ground if I have to do that. I just don't think that your
> ground is as irrefutably constant a part of 'reality' as you seem to think
> it is. I can play your game - but I can also play outside of it. Can you?
Not as a scientist.
> If we have an apocalypse or something 'reality changing' or something
> like that, then you are basically fucked up the ass big time (in a bad
way,
> that is). I stand a chance of getting through it.
So does everyone else in spite of your flawed reasoning.
> That is, basically, one of my reasons for thinking the way I do and
considering
> the things I do.
>
> And also and besides, it's fun and interesting. I like doing it. It helps
> me to cope.
By all means, feel free to think the way you do. But don't call it science.
-Brian
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, three weeks, 19 hours, 38 minutes and 40 seconds.
16672 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,084.09.
Extra life saved: 8 weeks, 1 day, 21 hours, 20 minutes.
Brian O'Neill
> >It is a possibility that the world was created last Thursday with all of
our
> >memories intact and with the appearance of old age.
> Yes it is.
> >It is a possibility that everything is controlled by garden gnomes that
live
> >in my kitchen cupboard.
> Yes. and the blue faeries on my bathroom mirror.
> >Would you say that these facets should be included in science? Does
> >excluding them make the conclusions without them bad science?
> No.
> >How would you
> >include garden gnomes and "Last Thursdayism" as valid science?[...]
> I would exclude them by virtue of the dep level assumptions which I
choose,
> or don't choose, to take as axiomatic. How would you exclude them?
I exclude them simply becaus ethere is no evidence.
I don't wish it on you, of course but you could get cancer. Scientists
don't understand why people get cancer, though there are things that
scientists have seen increase and/or lessens your chances, such as smoking
or exposure to sunlight.
Would you go to a doctor who says, "we can't disprove that your cancer is
caused by the blue faeries on your bathroom mirror, so we will assume that
it was. We also must assume that the blue faeries on your bathroom mirror
can cure this, so the proper procedure to treat your cancer isn't an
operation or chemotherapy. Instead, we - knowing the *real* cause of your
cancer - will simply dance around your body to drive the evil caner spirits
out.
I wouldn't visit a witch doctor like this... Would you? The minute you
don't exclude the supernatural, you're not doing science anymore.
> You've
> done so here, so tell me how and why you have done so. Also, what are
> the assumptions you've made that led you to conclude that these things
> aren't so?
>
> This could lead to an interesting discussion.
Not really.
It all comes down to evidence. You have none for your beliefs, therefore,
supposing them is not science, but mythology or fantasy or religion (or any
combination of the three).
-Brian
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, three weeks, 19 hours, 27 minutes and 31 seconds.
16672 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,084.05.
Duncan Armstrong
news:9f3p0a$9lso$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
> It all comes down to evidence. You have none for your beliefs, therefore,
> supposing them is not science, but mythology or fantasy or religion (or
any
> combination of the three).
>
(Philosophy)
Brian O'Neill
news:9f424r$drk$1...@bn2.blue.net...
> Ok, obviously I'm no scientist. I'm more interested in studying the
> scriptures.
> I'm sure you would call Archeology a science, wouldn't you? Archeology
has
> proved many, many things in the Bible to be true, including things that
> modern big heads said were complete bs until archeology said otherwise.
Name them, and point out the "modern big heads" who "said (these
discoveries) were complete bs until archeology said otherwise."
> Archeology and scientific observation has
> also "proved" that Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled long after they
> were written.
Name them.
> The way I see it, science and the Bible are entirely
> compatible, especially when scientists stick to the facts.
You mean like the flood?
> For instance,
> the order of creation as written in Genesis goes along well with science
Is that the order in Genesis I or Genesis II? Also, how did we get light
when the sun wasn't formed until the fourth day? Also, how did we count
days when without a sun and something going around it, when we didn't have
the star or planet until that fourth day?
> as
> does Isa 40:22 for instance, although scientists of his day would have
> called Isaiah a fool. Everyone knew the Earth was flat.
Actually, that verse implies that the world is flat, ironically enough.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
In addition, please provide any evidence of "scientists of the day" calling
Isaiah or anyone else a fool for thinking the earth was not flat.
> My question is, how is the explanation of our situation as found in the
> Bible any less valid than modern scientific conjecture regarding the
> evidence?
Simple: The Bible is not a science textbook. The amount of problems with
things such as the Flood alone could fill a textbook. Oh sure, archaeology
may find cities that are mentioned in the Bible, and tombs of kings that
might have also gotten the nod. But that in and of itseof doesn't mean
anythign about "prophesies," it doesn't change the multitude of things that
are, in fact, wrong (as in, no evidence to combat it and it's quite unlikely
it will show up), and certainly changes nothing as far as it being a mnoral
guide.
And the existance of every city mentioned (even the silly named places of
the Old Testament - how is the tourist revenue in Nod these days?) doesn't
prove in and of itself that Christ was God, for that matter...
> I have a flaky news server please cc responses to
> bedopug at yahoo.com
No, because I doubt you'll be back to provide the citations I asked for
anyway.
-Brian
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, three weeks, one day, 56 minutes and 40 seconds.
16681 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,085.19.
Extra life saved: 8 weeks, 1 day, 22 hours, 5 minutes.
Jinx
banded around in this discussion. While clearly versed in the use of a
thesarus, the arguements presented are nothing but teen-age word plays. I
have raided a number of sites, journals and the knowledge of the Prof. I
work with compiling this:
What is Evolution?
Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of
biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability
of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to
confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important
term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the
existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of
evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important
to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when
they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have
evolved from a common ancestor?
In the strictest sense, Evol. is the change in the Alleles from one
generation to the next, or within the gene pool ie within a population. That
is to say, changes in the base pair, sequence or structure of the DNA.
Perhaps a better description for non-scientists was offered by Douglas J.
Futuyma:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive;
galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution
... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend
the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not
considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in
populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable
via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological
evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight
changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as
those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from
the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
Sadly the dictionaries often define in evolution in terms of:
"change over time from simple of complex"
"the process by which basic creatures become more advanced"
Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion
about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to
fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a
different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in
evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of
evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to
demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!
Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists
are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed
that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is
that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all
about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the
common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to
understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person
who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be
religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that
results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations"
it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!
Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public
understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the correct
information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean
that we are dishonest. On the other hand, the general public, and
creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to
understand science. Reading a textbook would help.
Five missconceptions of Evol.
A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can
sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather
argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider
ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of
evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution
banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The
situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most
beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of
evolution.)
The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based
on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making
any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the
real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.
Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds,
by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.
Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. They are
brief and therefore somewhat simplified; consult the references at the end
for more thorough explanations.
"Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population
over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over
the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution
at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of
evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living
things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the
laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R.
Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a
founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed
Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several
additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that
evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something
happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would
expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences,
geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been
verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is
overwhelming.
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically
different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for
evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like
that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very
strong evidence against evolution.
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution.
The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the
sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."
[Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head
wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the
2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed
system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and
often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or
randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things
invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun
provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant
can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone
expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy
still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the
information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not
only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in
nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites,
graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming
from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that
order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you
are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order
from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is
it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about
evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of
how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution
says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations
(after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have
appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or
darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of
having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the
theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For
example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more
offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed
today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
"There are no transitional fossils."
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism
intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of
lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some
characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur
between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between
orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found
stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and
the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts
the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after
both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an
intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line
of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when
a line of descendents evolves.
To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has
progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands
of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less
restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will
be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make
that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a
small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these
conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down.
Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of
transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from
reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to
human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the
talk.origins archive, and see
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for
some invertebrate groups.
The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in
part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a
category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there
is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some
eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the
category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx
is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with
more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made
and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.
Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was
proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record.
Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional
forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to
happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all
during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that
transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken
opponents of Creationism.
"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary
forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic
about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould,
Natural History, May 1994
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds,
by random chance."
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the
arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in
evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of
natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in
the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material
that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts
out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive
success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial
mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations
are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a
different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually
to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they
don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance.
Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to
their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this
means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex
molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules.
Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural
selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The
first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell
or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all
that complex (as organic molecules go).
Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given
self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually
don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations).
This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and
no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served
as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless
unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first
replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms
that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the
construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start
with.
(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the
first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't
affect evolution in the least.)
"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."
First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words,
it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change
in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an
indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly
with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common
ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a
fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but
just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as
well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also
includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift,
which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.
Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true,
but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a
confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific
context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general
propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena"
[Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply
tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories
differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely.
Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and
usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last
point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to
find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable
predictions, they prove to be false.)
Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming
infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real
world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the
mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the
universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of
certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have
for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough
evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100%
certain.
What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots
of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the
fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and
others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address
that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant
or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know
both the theory and the evidence.
Conclusion
These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means. Other
common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques work,
implications to morality and religion, the meaning of "uniformitarianism,"
and many more. To address all these objections here would be impossible.
But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly
creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These
creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating
by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying
evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these
scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how
fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to
evolution would win them fame and fortune. Sometimes their work has changed
our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the
theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the
people who work on it.
P. Avis
BSc (Hons) Biochem
Currently researching a PhD
Nantko Schanssema
If reading their posts in Usenet counts as meeting, I've met European
creationists. Often they are Jehova's Witnesses. Normally they make
their arguments by copy&pasting some Watchtower CD-ROM or US
creationist web sites.
The good news is that creationists are relatively rare in Europe, and
have no say in educational curricula.
Regards,
Nantko
--
There is nothing so self-defeating as generosity: in the act of practising it,
you lose the ability to do so, and you become either poor and despised or,
seeking to avoid poverty, rapacious and hated. (Machiavelli, The Prince)
Brian O'Neill
news:l1oR6.1216$%_1.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > It all comes down to evidence. You have none for your beliefs,
therefore,
> > supposing them is not science, but mythology or fantasy or religion (or
> any
> > combination of the three).
> (Philosophy)
Okay, make it four! :-)
-Brian
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, three weeks, one day, 11 hours, 28 minutes and 45
seconds.
16699 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,087.39.
Extra life saved: 8 weeks, 1 day, 23 hours, 35 minutes.
Lisa Gardner
[...]
>My question is, how is the explanation of our situation as found in the
>Bible any less valid than modern scientific conjecture regarding the
I don't have an argument with you there.
It can be seen as 'less valid' if you set the criteria up beforehand
as to what is 'less valid' and what is 'more valid'. then according to
some people's criteria, it is a less valid explanation.
I'm sure that you know that and simply want people to admit that
yeah! The criteria are things that they've gone into the thing, already
possessing, and are the way they are for most people (even those
who see themselves as philosophical materialists and 'embracers
of science as the answer to any and all questions) due to the fact
that there are many, many deep level assumptions at the root of things-
most of which have not been examined at all by the person making them.
Or something like that. i dunno.
Lisa
wants the big plastic blackship man to leave her alone for a night or
two
Lisa Gardner
>"Lisa Gardner" <lgar...@mbay.net> wrote:
>
>> > > Evolution is not fact, it is only theory.
>
>> > Wrong. Evolution is an observable fact [...]
>>
>> What constitutes an 'observable fact' in your opinion, Daneel?
>
>Evidence.
What is 'evidence'? What constitutes 'evidence', in your book?
>> We actually *cannot* observe long term evolution of species
>> over time periods of a span that is longer than that or recorded
>> human history, actually - so we cannot verify that 'species have
>> changed' over that last ten million years or so.
>
>You are familiar with fossils, maybe?
Yes. These things we know and can observe:
1) we see species around us developing and changing
2)we find fossils
4)we carbon date the fossils (and we assume we're getting 'good'
info when we're doing that) and we find that they seem to be relate
in a certain way, or fit into other schemes that we conjecture for
the purposes of relating the things we find, to one anothe
Are you conjecturing these following things? -
4) well, maybe these fossils are from some kind of animal that existed
a long time ago
5)those animals grew and changed following a pattern that is roughly
like *what we see going on around us and what we can observe happening*
during the course of a human lifetime or of recorded human history. We
conjecture that things rougly like what we observe around us, were going
on during evolutionary spans of time - i.e., millions and billions of years
time frames.
Those latter two things are **conjectures**. We *cannot* observe them.
They *are not* observable fact.
The prior three things *are* observable fact. The latter two, are not.
Now, do you disagree with this statement? If so, with what part of it
do you disagree, and why do you disagree with it?
Lisa
Lisa Gardner
>our
>> >memories intact and with the appearance of old age.
>> >
>> >It is a possibility that everything is controlled by garden gnomes that
>live
>> >in my kitchen cupboard.
>> >
>> >Would you say that these facets should be included in science? Does
>> >excluding them make the conclusions without them bad science? How would
>you
>> >include garden gnomes and "Last Thursdayism" as valid science?[...]
>
>> I did not think of this point until just now:
>>
>> Let me say this: if the gnomes and the faeries decide to rebel one
>> day and so what you and I agree is 'reality' right now just goes wango
>> as a result, I might be able to handle it better than you - because your
>> basic level system of assumptions seems to include statementsx
>> something along the lines of, 'faeries and gnomes cannot exist'
>> and 'reality is pretty much just the way I see it, and I don't need to
>> question that assumption at all'.
>
>It's irrelevant until they do, and since there's no evidence that they
>exist, it makes it even more irrelevant.
>
>However, you still might be wrong. When people who claimed they were
>believers in UFOs being of alien origin had experiences that "proved" them
>right, many of them became complete lunatics.
Yes, yes! That happened to me. Funky things happened, I took the
chance on not disregarding my awareness of them completely, and
then I became a complete lunatic.
However, since I became a complete lunatic things have gotten both
much better and much more difficult.
I still seem to be able to reason, though, so I'd really like to see you
answer for me in a way that makes sense, some of the things I said
in a previous post. Thanks.
>Whereas, people who claimed
>to not believe in UFOs, when they saw them, didn't freak out, and in fact
>changed very little, only they they changed their views on the matter.
Yes, I've me those types of people also.
I can live in their world and function within it if I need to.
>So, evidence bears your hypothesis to be wrong.
Please state for me here:
-what my hypothesis actually *is*, and
-what the evidence that 'bears it wrong', is.
Thanks. If you do this then we can maybe talk a little more reasonably
together.
>> If this happens then I'll look at my basic level set of assumptions
>> and say, 'whoa - looks like something might need to be changed
>> here. What is it? Better look at formulating a new set of assumptions'
>> What will you do? You don't seem to me to be questioning or
>> examining at all, your own beliefs about 'what reality is' - and I
>> mean: those very deep level assumptions that exist right now
>> *outside of the domain of scientific endeavor* - those assumptions
>> that *underlay* empirical observation and experience. That underlay
>> it IMHO, that is.
>
>Guess what? That's exactly how scientists treat any new data.
Yes, and the best scientists realize that there are assumptions underlaying
what they themselves do, IMHO.
As a scientist, are you willing to consider the possibility that the sun will
not rise tomorrow, or that the earth will stop orbiting the sun? If not, then
why not?
>> I understand the mechanisms of science and I can do science myself
>> if I want to. I can function within the scientific thought scheme and I
>> can reason according to your set of basic assumptions. I can meet
>> you on your own ground if I have to do that. I just don't think that your
>> ground is as irrefutably constant a part of 'reality' as you seem to think
>> it is. I can play your game - but I can also play outside of it. Can you?
>
>Not as a scientist.
Okay, take off the science hat for a sec so that we can realistically talk
*about* science, okay?
Put on your 'talking *about* science' hat or if it makes you feel better,
some kind of 'meta-science' hat. Then we can better *look* at sciene,
because we won't be embedded within it.
>> If we have an apocalypse or something 'reality changing' or something
>> like that, then you are basically fucked up the ass big time (in a bad
>way,
>> that is). I stand a chance of getting through it.
>
>So does everyone else in spite of your flawed reasoning.
Where is my reasoning flawed? Point out the flaws in my reasoning to me.
Thanks.
>> That is, basically, one of my reasons for thinking the way I do and
>considering
>> the things I do.
>>
>> And also and besides, it's fun and interesting. I like doing it. It helps
>> me to cope.
>
>By all means, feel free to think the way you do. But don't call it science.
I don't call it science, brian, I call it doing and thinking however the hell I
wanna think and do. I don't recall *ever* calling it science, actually.
Lisa
Lisa Gardner
>our
>> >memories intact and with the appearance of old age.
>
>> Yes it is.
>
>> >It is a possibility that everything is controlled by garden gnomes that
>live
>> >in my kitchen cupboard.
>
>> Yes. and the blue faeries on my bathroom mirror.
>
>> >Would you say that these facets should be included in science? Does
>> >excluding them make the conclusions without them bad science?
>
>> No.
>
>> >How would you
>> >include garden gnomes and "Last Thursdayism" as valid science?[...]
>
>> I would exclude them by virtue of the dep level assumptions which I
>choose,
>> or don't choose, to take as axiomatic. How would you exclude them?
>
>I exclude them simply becaus ethere is no evidence.
In any formal mathematical system, axioms are taken as axioms
because they 'seem right'. by the nature of what they are, they cannot
be proven *within* the formal mathematical system. So they must
be 'assumed' from the outset, if the qualities that they... 'represent'
are qualities that 'seem' right, or that the mathematician simply
*wants to take* as an axiom.
Axioms are axioms because they are things that 'seem right',
but that *cannot be proven within the formal mathematical system*
for which they are axioms, basically.
A lot of mathematics that is done today cannot be done unless the
mathematician tacitly or outrightly, assumes this basic mathematical
axiom called, 'The axiom of choice'. That axiom makes a statement
about families of infinite sets and what can be done with them.
In order for something to be taken as 'axiomatic', what kind of
evidence would you require before you were willing to 'assume' it?
>I don't wish it on you, of course but you could get cancer. Scientists
>don't understand why people get cancer, though there are things that
>scientists have seen increase and/or lessens your chances, such as smoking
>or exposure to sunlight.
Yeah, well, I do but I can't prove it.
>Would you go to a doctor who says, "we can't disprove that your cancer is
>caused by the blue faeries on your bathroom mirror, so we will assume that
>it was. We also must assume that the blue faeries on your bathroom mirror
>can cure this, so the proper procedure to treat your cancer isn't an
>operation or chemotherapy. Instead, we - knowing the *real* cause of your
>cancer - will simply dance around your body to drive the evil caner spirits
>out.
Well Brian, let's just say this: I'll try lots of different things. I won't expect
the people like you to pay any attention to any of it (and that's okay by me)
until you start to see changes and you can relate them to whatever it is I am
doing.
Hey! that's okay by me.
>I wouldn't visit a witch doctor like this... Would you?
Yep, I would if I'd chosen him wisely, along with trying other things.
>The minute you
>don't exclude the supernatural, you're not doing science anymore.
What constitutes the 'supernatural'?
>> You've
>> done so here, so tell me how and why you have done so. Also, what are
>> the assumptions you've made that led you to conclude that these things
>> aren't so?
>>
>> This could lead to an interesting discussion.
>
>Not really.
Sure, okay.
>It all comes down to evidence. You have none for your beliefs, therefore,
>supposing them is not science, but mythology or fantasy or religion (or any
>combination of the three).
Well, yes. I never claimed to be engaging in any sort of science of the type
that you are talking about, or any kind of sciene whatsoever, actually. I only
claim to be **talking about* science, which is not the same as actually doing
science.
I like mythology and fantasy and religion. I have my own little mythological
scheme that I'm putting together for myself. IMHO, it's really pretty cool.
I like it.
Lisa
Lisa Gardner
> TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
> One year, one month, three weeks, 19 hours, 38 minutes and
> 40 seconds.
> 16672 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,084.09.
> Extra life saved: 8 weeks, 1 day, 21 hours, 20 minutes.
You and I don't seem to agree on much here Brian, but
I just noticed the above and wanna say: congrats on the
quitting smoking. Good for you and your lungs.
Lisa
Brian O'Neill
> >> > > Evolution is not fact, it is only theory.
> >> > Wrong. Evolution is an observable fact [...]
> >> What constitutes an 'observable fact' in your opinion, Daneel?
> >Evidence.
> What is 'evidence'? What constitutes 'evidence', in your book?
Are you really this dense about basic science or are you being purposely
obtuse?
Evidence - Scientific data.
And it's not "my book" that's at issue here. It's called science.
> >> We actually *cannot* observe long term evolution of species
> >> over time periods of a span that is longer than that or recorded
> >> human history, actually - so we cannot verify that 'species have
> >> changed' over that last ten million years or so.
> >You are familiar with fossils, maybe?
> Yes. These things we know and can observe:
>
> 1) we see species around us developing and changing
Yes.
> 2)we find fossils
Yes.
> 4)we carbon date the fossils (and we assume we're getting 'good'
> info when we're doing that)
No need to assume anything - We can test dating methods to show how accurate
they are and why. And then we can test an artifact by several different
methods to confirm the dates.
> and we find that they seem to be relate
> in a certain way, or fit into other schemes that we conjecture for
> the purposes of relating the things we find, to one anothe
>
> Are you conjecturing these following things? -
I don't know what "conjecturing" is, but if that means we look at all of the
evidence and form the likely scenerios, then sure.
> 4) well, maybe these fossils are from some kind of animal that existed
> a long time ago
There's no maybe about it. Fossils are by the definition of the term
remnants of animals that lived a long time ago.
> 5)those animals grew and changed following a pattern that is roughly
> like *what we see going on around us and what we can observe happening*
> during the course of a human lifetime or of recorded human history. We
> conjecture that things rougly like what we observe around us, were going
> on during evolutionary spans of time - i.e., millions and billions of
years
> time frames.
>
> Those latter two things are **conjectures**. We *cannot* observe them.
> They *are not* observable fact.
They are "facts" as far as science is concerned. Unless you have a better
idea that fits the data. Do you?
> The prior three things *are* observable fact. The latter two, are not.
I wonder what you'll say when you get to the question I asked you later
on... The one about having a better idea to explain the evidence of no human
hominids ever found past a certain age?
> Now, do you disagree with this statement? If so, with what part of it
> do you disagree, and why do you disagree with it?
I disagree with the whole excersice because none of it means a lick. Unless
you have a better idea for why we find what we find, that is. Thus far, you
have not.
Don't feel bad... Nobody else has either.
-Brian
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, three weeks, one day, 14 hours, 9 minutes and 3
seconds.
16703 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,087.95.
Extra life saved: 8 weeks, 1 day, 23 hours, 55 minutes.
Clint
> "Creationists" show their true colors by denying everything
> factual ... because it doesn't come up to their standards of
> "proof". They tacitly admit that the evidence for evolution is
> so overwhelming that they have to resort to this kind of
> absurdity.
But if you look at the theory of evolution, it requires just as much faith as
creation. Evolution fails to provide for how the original matter that caused a "big
bang" or other such event came to exist. The matter either had to be created, come
from nothing or be eternal. An eternal matter defies the very laws of science they
say would support their theory, and eternal matter seems at least as, if not more,
supernatural than an eternal deity.
I've heard some say that life or matter spontaneously generated itself. Again, this
contradicts science. Life has never come from non-life, and matter has never come
from non-matter.
The only other possible explanation is creation. Can it be absolutely proven? Of
course not, but it makes more sense to my mind. I'm not trying to prove any of
these theories, but many evolutionists tend to believe that the creationist belief
is based solely on faith and ignores science. This is not the case. The difference
is that they will openly admit to a supernatural event, while the evolutionist
closes his eyes to it.
cb
--
Clint Burns
clint...@neo.tamu.edu
"If it's to be, refuse to believe," --Jeff Tweedy
"There's darkness in this life, but the brighter side we also may view," --Jeff
Tweedy
Brian O'Neill
My answers make sense. Whether you will be able to comprehend them is a
different matter, of course.
> >Whereas, people who claimed
> >to not believe in UFOs, when they saw them, didn't freak out, and in fact
> >changed very little, only they they changed their views on the matter.
> Yes, I've me those types of people also.
>
> I can live in their world and function within it if I need to.
And others cannot then? Where is your evidence of this? What makes you so
special?
> >So, evidence bears your hypothesis to be wrong.
> Please state for me here:
>
> -what my hypothesis actually *is*, and
Well, if you don't know it, I really don't see what we're discussing.
But you did posit that you and people who seem to revel in the *possibility*
of garden gnomes controlling the universe would be better equipped to handle
them having an "uprising" than the people who don't see evidence for them,
and therefore don't much care.
I say, you either show some evidence for this, or it's meaningless
conjecture on your part.
And then I offered evidence as to why it is false, the examples of people
who saw UFOs. In relation to whether they were believers or not before the
event, there ain't much corolation to back you up, and probably corolation
that directly refutes you.
So, either provide evidence for your idea, or admit it's complete and utter
tripe you pulled out of your ass that you cannot substantiate.
> Thanks. If you do this then we can maybe talk a little more reasonably
> together.
Sorry, but unless you can quantify what you think is correct, there's
nothing "reasonable" about what you assert. It's just babble.
> >> If this happens then I'll look at my basic level set of assumptions
> >> and say, 'whoa - looks like something might need to be changed
> >> here. What is it? Better look at formulating a new set of assumptions'
> >> What will you do? You don't seem to me to be questioning or
> >> examining at all, your own beliefs about 'what reality is' - and I
> >> mean: those very deep level assumptions that exist right now
> >> *outside of the domain of scientific endeavor* - those assumptions
> >> that *underlay* empirical observation and experience. That underlay
> >> it IMHO, that is.
> >Guess what? That's exactly how scientists treat any new data.
> Yes, and the best scientists realize that there are assumptions
underlaying
> what they themselves do, IMHO.
No, they don't, not in the way that you paint it at any rate. They realize
that any "assumptions" they might have are there because a proliferation of
evidence made them "facts." One can assume a fact, you know.
> As a scientist, are you willing to consider the possibility that the sun
will
> not rise tomorrow, or that the earth will stop orbiting the sun? If not,
then
> why not?
I am not a scientist, I just happen to understand science.
Sure, there is a possibility for all of those things. So what?
> >> I understand the mechanisms of science and I can do science myself
> >> if I want to. I can function within the scientific thought scheme and I
> >> can reason according to your set of basic assumptions. I can meet
> >> you on your own ground if I have to do that. I just don't think that
your
> >> ground is as irrefutably constant a part of 'reality' as you seem to
think
> >> it is. I can play your game - but I can also play outside of it. Can
you?
> >Not as a scientist.
> Okay, take off the science hat for a sec so that we can realistically talk
> *about* science, okay?
Illogical. If one is talking about science, one does not "take off" the
science hat, one leaves it on.
> Put on your 'talking *about* science' hat or if it makes you feel better,
> some kind of 'meta-science' hat. Then we can better *look* at sciene,
> because we won't be embedded within it.
Sorry, but that's not how science works and that's not how I work. Provide
evidence for your claims or really, there's ntohing to talk about.
> >> If we have an apocalypse or something 'reality changing' or something
> >> like that, then you are basically fucked up the ass big time (in a bad
> >way,
> >> that is). I stand a chance of getting through it.
> >So does everyone else in spite of your flawed reasoning.
>
> Where is my reasoning flawed? Point out the flaws in my reasoning to me.
> Thanks.
Already did. With the UFO folks. And thus far, you haven't shown me WHY
your reasoning ISN'T FLAWED, and that burden of proof is on you, you know.
> >> That is, basically, one of my reasons for thinking the way I do and
> >considering
> >> the things I do.
> >>
> >> And also and besides, it's fun and interesting. I like doing it. It
helps
> >> me to cope.
> >By all means, feel free to think the way you do. But don't call it
science.
> I don't call it science, brian, I call it doing and thinking however the
hell I
> wanna think and do. I don't recall *ever* calling it science, actually.
Then please feel free to leave this newsgroup which does talk about science.
You wanna find a newsgroup that discusses and believes in the possibilities
of fairies revolting, go for it. It ain't talk.origins. (Yes, I realize
this is crossposted to a couple other groups... They have even LESS to do
with fairies, I think...)
-Brian
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, three weeks, one day, 14 hours, 20 minutes and 10
seconds.
16703 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,087.99.
Extra life saved: 8 weeks, 1 day, 23 hours, 55 minutes.
Jon Cornell
>> One year, one month, three weeks, 19 hours, 38 minutes and
>> 40 seconds.
>> 16672 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,084.09.
>> Extra life saved: 8 weeks, 1 day, 21 hours, 20 minutes.
>
>You and I don't seem to agree on much here Brian, but
>I just noticed the above and wanna say: congrats on the
>quitting smoking. Good for you and your lungs.
>
>Lisa
However, studies have shown that smoking significantly reduces the risk of
breast cancer.
Being an underweight, young, male smoker with no family history of breast
cancer, I can safely say that I am incredibly unlikely to contract this
horrible disease.
Jon
Jon Cornell
>scriptures.
"Quote the sciptures, keep them guessing which pit you crawled from"
>Scientists of his day would have
>called Isaiah a fool. Everyone knew the Earth was flat.
Got to disagree with you here. By observing the angles of shadows and doing
a little basic trigonometry, ancient Greek scientists were able to deduct
not only that the earth was a sphere, but very accurately calculate its
diameter.
Also, the Mayans knew for a very, very long time that the Earth was a globe.
Some people think this is because aliens descended from the sky and told
them. I disagree.
Finally, the Bible makes reference to both "the circle of the earth" and
"the four corners of the earth", so if the earth turned out to be flat,
"Christian scientists" would simply use the other passage to tout the
accuracy of the Bible.
Jon
Brian O'Neill
> >> >It is a possibility that the world was created last Thursday with all
of
> >our
> >> >memories intact and with the appearance of old age.
> >
> >> Yes it is.
> >
> >> >It is a possibility that everything is controlled by garden gnomes
that
> >live
> >> >in my kitchen cupboard.
> >
> >> Yes. and the blue faeries on my bathroom mirror.
> >
> >> >Would you say that these facets should be included in science? Does
> >> >excluding them make the conclusions without them bad science?
> >
> >> No.
> >
> >> >How would you
> >> >include garden gnomes and "Last Thursdayism" as valid science?[...]
> >
> >> I would exclude them by virtue of the dep level assumptions which I
> >choose,
> >> or don't choose, to take as axiomatic. How would you exclude them?
> >
> >I exclude them simply becaus ethere is no evidence.
> In any formal mathematical system...
This isn't math. It's science. There's a big difference between the two,
you know.
I don't even think you managed to describe the math part right, but I'll
leave that to any mathematicians in the house should they be so inclined.
[meaningless math commentary snipped]
> >I don't wish it on you, of course but you could get cancer. Scientists
> >don't understand why people get cancer, though there are things that
> >scientists have seen increase and/or lessens your chances, such as
smoking
> >or exposure to sunlight.
> Yeah, well, I do but I can't prove it.
You know how people get cancer? But you can't prove it? Then I'd say you
don't know... I'd say you have some silly faith system which means nothing
in the real world.
> >Would you go to a doctor who says, "we can't disprove that your cancer is
> >caused by the blue faeries on your bathroom mirror, so we will assume
that
> >it was. We also must assume that the blue faeries on your bathroom
mirror
> >can cure this, so the proper procedure to treat your cancer isn't an
> >operation or chemotherapy. Instead, we - knowing the *real* cause of
your
> >cancer - will simply dance around your body to drive the evil caner
spirits
> >out.
> Well Brian, let's just say this: I'll try lots of different things. I
won't expect
> the people like you to pay any attention to any of it (and that's okay by
me)
> until you start to see changes and you can relate them to whatever it is I
am
> doing.
That's great, but you didn't answer my question.
> >I wouldn't visit a witch doctor like this... Would you?
> Yep, I would if I'd chosen him wisely, along with trying other things.
What do you mean "chosen wisely?" You yourself said that you have to be
open to any and all possibilities! There is no choice; any crackpot
unprovable healing method is okay with you, that's what you said!
Also, why would you do the other things then? If the witch doctor is right,
you don't need the real doctors. Why have an operation when you can be
danced around? What if the witch doctor says that operations will counter
all of his dancing? Seems that you don't have the brains to figure out what
is the best treatment is anyway.
Also, what if one of the people you go to suggests that you must submit
yourself to something that you don't like or just seems like a bad idea, but
he says it's the only way to cure your cancer. Say this involves jumping
off a large building and having the faith that the good spirits will help
you land safely, but only after the evil spirits leave you, being scared of
the fall and all.
Do you do that too? Are you so "open-minded" to do this?
If not, why not? How do you know that they're not right unless you try it?
By your own logic, you MUST submit to this "healing." After all, you don't
KNOW they're WRONG, do you?
> >The minute you
> >don't exclude the supernatural, you're not doing science anymore.
> What constitutes the 'supernatural'?
Anything outside natural laws.
> >> You've
> >> done so here, so tell me how and why you have done so. Also, what are
> >> the assumptions you've made that led you to conclude that these things
> >> aren't so?
> >>
> >> This could lead to an interesting discussion.
> >Not really.
>
> Sure, okay.
>
> >It all comes down to evidence. You have none for your beliefs,
therefore,
> >supposing them is not science, but mythology or fantasy or religion (or
any
> >combination of the three).
> Well, yes. I never claimed to be engaging in any sort of science of the
type
> that you are talking about, or any kind of sciene whatsoever, actually. I
only
> claim to be **talking about* science, which is not the same as actually
doing
> science.
If you want to talk about science, you better stick to science. Otherwise,
it's just babble.
> I like mythology and fantasy and religion. I have my own little
mythological
> scheme that I'm putting together for myself. IMHO, it's really pretty
cool.
That's nice and all, but not testable, provable or falsifyable, therefore
not science. Therefore, irrelevant to this newsgroup (talk.origins).
> I like it.
That's great. Now keep it out of science newsgroups and keep it with your
Dungeons & Dragons-playing friends.
-Brian
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, three weeks, one day, 14 hours, 31 minutes and 2
seconds.
16704 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,088.02.
Extra life saved: 8 weeks, 2 days, 0 minutes.