SCMike is largely a waste of an intelligent persons time.
He refuses to answer any objections, substantiate any claims, returns to his same unsubstantiated talking points over and over again and ignores any post of yours that he is uncomfortable answering.
"#1 Are you certain that this is a logical fallacy?? If so, please tell us how you're certain, apart from God. If not, you certainly have no right to judge my claim."
Are you certain that it's not? Is god talking to you right now? Did he reveal to you in a way that you can be certain that your arguments are perfect and right? If so, could you please show us when and where god has revealed this to you? If you're receiving messages from an omnipotent, omniscient god - I've got a few questions for it that would allow you to substantiate your silly claims.
You have yet to provide any evidence or reason that one needs to be 100% certain about something in order to state a fact correctly or posit a relevant idea or claim. While you're doing so, please account for the fact that science and all its trappings ONLY works and allows us to examine the world around us(and improve lives, and cure diseases and feed millions of starving children and send humans into space, etc) because of the concept of falsifiability. Falsifiability is the idea that something is proven to be MARGINALLY TRUE because of the POSSIBILITY OF THE CONTRARY.
You also state multiple times that you know "SOME THINGS" for certain. SOME THINGS but not ALL things - isn't that right? You said that you don't know EVERYTHING for certain - just some things. Well, what about everything that you're not mysteriously certain about via divine revelation? Are you just as 'uncertain' about those things as I am - or do you use your proven - reliable cognitive abilities in such cases that don't require divine revelation? Do you ask god every single time you use an elevator whether or not it will work? Or do you rely on past experience, evidence based reasoning and your cognitive abilities to decide that you're ALMOST CERTAIN that the elevator won't send you dropping 12 storeys to your death? Are you ALMOST CERTAIN that you won't get into a car accident and be killed? Are you ALMOST CERTAIN that if you eat a hotdog from the grocery store you won't get salmonella and die? Are you almost certain that the computer you're using to read this will work when you turn it on? Are you almost certain that your car will work when you turn it on? I'll bet you rely on evidence based reasoning to assure you of such things(unless you claim divine revelation and absolute knowledge).
When explaining this discrepancy, please explain to all of us which things it is necessary to be 100% certain about via 'divine revelation', and which things it's okay to let our congnative faculties assure us that what we're considering is EXTREMELY LIKELY to be true. Please explain to us how, when and why you decide that a certain thing is something you need to be 100% positive about and which things it's okay to be ALMOST CERTAIN about.
"#2 What absolute, universal, standard of logic are you claiming I am violating, and why does that standard NECESSARILY apply to my argument??"
None, because there's no such thing. You skipped my entire, lengthy post explaining why even your language betrays the invalidity of your points here. I'll repost it for your benefit.
SCMike's talking point:
"For example you write "By calling my argument a fallacy, you are appealing to the very absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and reason that you deny exist."
Absolute and universal mean the exact same thing. If something is absolute than it's universal. If something is universal than it's absolute.Why would one engage in such redundancy other than to attempt to SOUND intelligent? If you wanted to be clear and concise, you would omit one of those terms.
Also, logic and reason are synonyms. There's no reason to appeal to the exact same thing twice. That's like saying "the laws of violet and purple." Redundant language.
Immaterial refers to something having no 'body or form'. What does it mean to claim that your supposed absolutes have no body or form? How does this add information to your discussion? Every thought that every human(right or wrong) has ever had is 'immaterial'. Every idea, concept, 'law', has been immaterial. The concept of economics is immaterial. What does it mean to say that your absolutes are immaterial? What does it add to the dialogue about or understanding of these absolutes? Not a thing. It just SOUNDS smart and helps to cloud the issue.
And attempting to define your absolutes as 'laws' is also pretty self defeating. Which of the 20 definitions for the word 'law' are you attempting to utilize? A law, as understood by most people, is something that humans have INVENTED to describe a natural phenomena. And like all ideas, these laws are immaterial - they're simply concepts that exist in our minds. As such, any laws posited by humans are subject to change with new information and likely have been changed multiple times.
An example would the 'laws of motion' - a collection of rules and ideas to explain the phenomena of motion. These laws were THOUGHT to be absolute, and were certainly immaterial. But the law was CHANGED by Einstein's discovery of relativity. New information changes our ideas and concepts which in turn changes our laws. Under no definition of law would it be asserted that a law is unchangeable.
Therefore, calling anything that you want to claim is absolute a 'law' is self-refuting. A law, by definition, is a set of rules and ideas about a concept that is CHANGEABLE with new information.
So, when we strip away all the redundant and mis-used language from your claim, Mike, we go from:
"Absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and reason exist."
Absolute logic exists.
This is your claim. Absolute logic exists.
And when you strip away all the other unnecessary and misleading verbiage, you get something that isn't nearly as baffling or impressive sounding as you try to make it out to be.
What does it even mean to claim that absolute logic exists? And how would one ever be able to prove it? Logic is simply a particular method of reasoning or argumentation engaged in by the fallible minds of humans. As such, how could this human construct be considered absolute?
When you strip it down to its barest bones, your conjecture has zero meaning, Mike.
"#3 Is it possible that an omniscient, omnipotent God could reveal Himself to us in a way in which we can be certain?? You seem to be assuming that this is NOT possible. Why??"
Is it possible that my waffle could get off my plate and do a tango? Technically it is. Technically, thanks to the scientific principle of falsifiability, anything is possible. However, also thanks to falsifiability, I can say that it is EXTREMELY unlikely based on evidence based reasoning that my waffle will tango - or that your invisible, magic sky friend is transmitting you special messages. I'm not saying that it CAN'T happen - I'm stating that you've given me zero reason to consider your claims to be even remotely true.
Also, what does it even mean to state that you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN about something when the thing you're claiming to be certain about has been demonstrated by science to be RIDICULOUSLY HIGHLY LIKELY - ie that gravity will continue to exist, or completely untestable and therefore unprovable - ie that god exists.
You're claiming certainty about something scientifically proven to be marginally true or something untestable. In essence your certainty claims amount to nothing, provide you with no extra information about the natural world and no more understanding than anyone who chooses to take a more intellectually honest route. If this supposed certainty adds no extra provable information, then what's the difference?
"(I know why you skipped my question (twice) asking you to tell me something you know for certain that is not true)."
I skipped it because it's a ridiculous strawman of what I was discussing. I never claimed that I PERSONALLY know anything for 'certain' which is 'not true'. I said that many christians(who you say have divine revelation from god) have BEEN absolutely certain about things that were later PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE. Then I asked you to account for this. You have yet to do so.
"knowledge (n)--the act, fact, or state of knowing
know (v)--to perceive or understand clearly or with CERTAINTY (emphasis mine)
(Webster's Student Dictionary)
Apology accepted in advance. ;D"
So, you're giving me the second or uncommon usage of a word that we weren't discussing? And then you're expecting me to perceive this as some small victory on your part?
You blatantly stated that the definition of the word KNOWLEDGE was 'something that you are certain about' - when I provided evidence that this claim of yours was demonstrably false, you attempted to weasel out of your original claim and utilize different wording. This is so blatantly dishonest. If you can't even be adult enough to admit an error, retract it and attempt to restate your point in a way that DOES make sense, why should I consider anything you're saying to be intellectually honest or true?
"I will explain this to you once more, Maragon, in hopes of you finally understanding (although I won't get my hopes up). A person cannot be absolutely certain about something that is not true."
So all of the millions of christians that came before you and exist with you that are claiming something that you're not claiming - ie that the earth is flat - are lying? Is everyone except you lying about how certain they are about something? Were millions of christians bearing false witness when they stated that they were absolutely certain that the earth was flat? You can't retroactively state that someone wasn't certain because they were wrong. Truth has no bearing on certainty - no matter how many times you attempt to unsubstantiatedly assert the contrary.
As for yourself - if one of your beliefs that you currently hold to be absolutely true was disproved tomorrow, would that change how certain you were when you were claiming to be absolutely certain? And if one of your beliefs that you're certain about turns out to be not true is it because your cognitive faculties were tricked? Or because you didn't understand the evidence? Or was it because your god was lying to you?
"By the way, how do you know for certain that Christians have been factually incorrect about the age of the earth, or should I put this statement with your other unjustified knowledge claims?? Let me know."
You keep saying that I have multiple unjustified knowledge claims.
Are you absolutely certain that I have made unjustified claims to knowledge? In order to be absolutely certain about this you would need to claim that you know absolutely everything that I do - and every thought passing through my brain.
Or do you just think that it's HIGHLY LIKELY that I am making unsubstantiated claims to knowledge?
To wit, why must you ask me ad nausem if I'm ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN about everything I ever say? You know damned well that I make NO CLAIM to ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. I see no reason for you to do this other than an attempt to further evade answering questions you're uncomfortable with.
Also, you state many many times that you are not certain about EVERYTHING - just some things. Ergo, you are not absolutely certain about everything you ever say. Therefore, why do you keep asking me if I'm ALWAYS CERTAIN when you admit that you are not always certain? What a ridiculous(but convenient) double standard you have there.
"The proof that God exists is the impossibility of the contrary."
The proof that you're wrong exists in the impossibility of the contrary. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT YOU ARE NOT WRONG. Refute my posistion. But every time you do, I'll simply explain to you that your refutation is meaningless because it's not possible that you're not wrong.
Also, in order to assert that the 'contrary' is 'impossible' you would need to have absolute knowledge of every possible instance in which a god could not exist, and be able to refute all of them. Therefore I hope you can give us some SPECIFIC reasons as to why it is impossible that a god doesn't exist. Cite some examples. Substantiate something you've claimed. Surprise us.
"Actually, God has revealed that we can know things for certain and that He exists. Surely, you're not about to deny this possibility, are you??"
Certainly you're not going to deny the fact that this is viciously circular?
You basically restated what I said, and agreed with it.
You believe that god exists, because god told you that he does. You're assuming your conclusion to be true in your premise.
I know that the invisible purple moose in my closet exists because he told me that he does. Please refute this fact.
"Actually, I believe the onus of proof lies upon you to prove your assertion, although I am thrilled to see that you have realized that you must abandon your atheism in order to account for knowledge. Thanks!! God Bless."
Are you certain that the onus of proof rests on me?
Why should the onus rest on me? I can't even EXPLAIN my argument to you, because you can't account for the absolute, immaterial, universal, green, laws of logic, reason and peanut butter that you would be using to evaluate my claims. Also he must exist because of the impossibility of the contrary.
Are you certain I've abandoned my atheism? Are you certain that I rely on an invisible purple moose to account for knowledge?
Are you certain about anything relevant? Are you certain about anything that hasn't been proven marginally true by science? Are you certain about anything that hasn't previously been proven to be true but would be subject to testing and verification?
Didn't think so.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The craziest discussion I've ever had.
First email from me:
Dear Sye,
I know that you claim to be an engineer on Ray Comfort's site, this is a continual source of hilarity to me given the poor caliber of your arguments and your abysmal understanding of science.
Today you said,
"What is the evidence for the validity of the scientific method?"
My fiance, who is an actual registered Professional Engineer(P.Eng) in Canada would like me to point out that the evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering - which is applied science.
Of course, if you were a real University educated P.Eng, you'd know that already.
Have a nice night using circular logic to confuse people who are even stupider than you are.
Love,
Two atheists with real educations.
First reply from Sye,
Hello Meagan (I've always liked that name :-)
You said that the evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering??? How is that evidence for the validity of the scientific method???
Your argument would be like me saying: "The evidence for the existence of God is the profession of theology." Hardly an argument.
The scientific method is entirely dependent on the uniformity of nature. How does the profession of engineering justify the uniformity of nature?
Cheers,
Sye
First reply from me:
Sye,
"How is that evidence for the validity of the scientific method??? "
If the scientific method was not valid, it wouldn't be possible to apply it in the field of engineering. In example, it would not be possible to use the laws of electromagnetics to communicate via the internet if they were not discovered utilizing the scientific method. Engineering is simply applied science.
"How does the profession of engineering justify the uniformity of nature?"
The scientific method has absolutely nothing to do with the uniformity of nature. By saying that, it assumes that nature is uniform, but the fact that this is true hardly invalidates it.
You just brought this up out of nowhere, it has no context in our discussion.
"Your argument would be like me saying: "The evidence for the existence of God is the profession of theology." "
No, it's not. Engineering is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method. Theology is proof of the existence of organized religion, nothing more - seeing as god(s) are not testable and verifiable via the scientific method.
To make the correct analogy the existence of god would be proven by a real faith healer, and none of them have panned out yet.
Second reply from Sye:
Meagan,
"If the scientific method was not valid, it wouldn't be possible to apply it in the field of engineering."
Soooo, back to my question: "What is the evidence for the validity of the scientific method?"
"The scientific method has absolutely nothing to do with the uniformity of nature."
Well, then, I'm afraid it is you who does not understand the scientific method. Science can only be done because the future is assumed to behave like the past. Without that assumption, science would be impossible, problem is, the professed atheist has exactly zero basis for such an assumption. You should look for a smarter scientist to marry :-)
"By saying that, it assumes that nature is uniform, but the fact that this is true hardly invalidates it."
Huh, I just want to know on what basis you proceed with the assumption that nature is uniform?
"Your argument would be like me saying: "The evidence for the existence of God is the profession of theology." "
"No, it's not. Engineering is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method."
Yikes, do you realize what you are saying??? You are basically saying: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering, which is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method." YOWZA!
Cheers,
Sye
Second reply from me:
Sye,
"Soooo, back to my question: "What is the evidence for the validity of the scientific method?""
Just because you refuse to acknowledge my answer doesn't mean I didn't give one.
How about you go ahead and give me your evidence for the invalidity of the scientific method.
"Well, then, I'm afraid it is you who does not understand the scientific method. Science can only be done because the future is assumed to behave like the past. Without that assumption, science would be impossible, problem is, the professed atheist has exactly zero basis for such an assumption. You should look for a smarter scientist to marry :-)"
So, the fact that nature has been uniform for all of recorded history is not a basis for the assumption that it will continue to remain uniform? The uniformity of nature is a logical assumption based on the scientific evidence. All you're trying to get at is that god makes nature uniform, which as anyone who understands science would know, is unfounded and untestable and therefore a useless assertion. And even if there was a god who made nature uniform, how would that invalidate the scientific method?
And my fiance isn't a scientist, he's a professional engineer, maybe you'd know the difference if you had any actual accreditation.
"You are basically saying: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering, which is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method.""
That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't see what your problem is.
Third reply from Sye:
Meagan,
"Just because you refuse to acknowledge my answer doesn't mean I didn't give one."
Well, it sure wasn't much of an answer: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is that we use it." You don't see the problem there?
"How about you go ahead and give me your evidence for the invalidity of the scientific method."
Um, no, I DO believe that it is valid, the difference is that I can account for the foundation of the scientific method - the uniformity of nature, whereas you cannot.
"So, the fact that nature has been uniform for all of recorded history is not a basis for the assumption that it will continue to remain uniform?"
Yip. First of all, you are assuming the validity of your own reasoning to come to the conclusion that nature has been uniform, and you are begging the question, by assuming that the future WILL BE like the past, because the future HAS BEEN like the past, in the past. See, I'm not asking about the past, I want to know on what basis you assume that the scientific method is valid, not on what basis it HAS BEEN valid.
"The uniformity of nature is a logical assumption based on the scientific evidence."
Eeeeek, you're doing it again. You are saying: "The uniformity of nature is a logical assumption based on the scientific evidence which is based on the uniformity of nature."
"All you're trying to get at is that god makes nature uniform, which as anyone who understands science would know, is unfounded and untestable and therefore a useless assertion."
Please show me the foundation, and tests for the validity of that statement, then perhaps you could show me the foundation and the tests for the validity of the scientific method.
"And even if there was a god who made nature uniform, how would that invalidate the scientific method? "
Huh? I am not saying that the scientific method is invalid, I am saying that YOU cannot account for the validity of the scientific methos according to YOUR worldview.
"You are basically saying: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering, which is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method.""
"That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't see what your problem is."
Thanks for that admission! Perhaps we should just let it rest there then. If you can't see the problem with saying: The validity of the scientific method is verifiable via the scientific method, then there is no point in continuing.
Cheers,
Sye
Third reply from me:
Sye,
" Well, it sure wasn't much of an answer: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is that we use it." You don't see the problem there?"
Uh, no? If it wasn't valid, it wouldn't work. The scientific method is validated by the fact that it works.
"Yip. First of all, you are assuming the validity of your own reasoning to come to the conclusion that nature has been uniform, and you are begging the question, by assuming that the future WILL BE like the past, because the future HAS BEEN like the past, in the past. See, I'm not asking about the past, I want to know on what basis you assume that the scientific method is valid, not on what basis it HAS BEEN valid."
That's awfully silly. Why do you think it will stop? What evidence do you have that the uniformity of nature is not constant?
Trying to arbitrarily separate past knowledge and future knowledge is nonsensical. You've given me no reason to not continue to assume the uniformity of nature based on the fact that nature has always been uniform - you've just decided that I should.
And besides all that, looking to a deity(lets pretend one exists) to keep nature constant holds no logic or predictable power whatsoever. What if the deity decided to change the laws of nature tomorrow? On what basis are you assuming it won't?
It seems to me that an atheist has far more reason to assume the uniformity of nature, because there appears to be no agent of change, which is not the case with a theist.
"Eeeeek, you're doing it again. You are saying: "The uniformity of nature is a logical assumption based on the scientific evidence which is based on the uniformity of nature."
No, it assumes the uniformity of nature, it isn't BASED on the uniformity of nature. The fact that nature is uniform merely makes the scientists job alot easier.
"Please show me the foundation, and tests for the validity of that statement, then perhaps you could show me the foundation and the tests for the validity of the scientific method."
You're asking for something that doesn't make any sense. Why should I have to prove to you that something that cannot be tested or validated in any way is useless? It's common sense.
"Huh? I am not saying that the scientific method is invalid, I am saying that YOU cannot account for the validity of the scientific methos according to YOUR worldview."
That's a nonsensical assertion. As a rational person I can utilize my prior knowledge to assume future outcome. Your attempt to debase this is ridiculous. Saying we can never assume anything about anything without absolute knowledge(that you conveniently claim you get by believing in jesus) is as deep as a high school philosophy course.'We can't know anything for sure, man.'
"Thanks for that admission! Perhaps we should just let it rest there then. If you can't see the problem with saying: The validity of the scientific method is verifiable via the scientific method, then there is no point in continuing."
If you can't understand why the validity of the scientific method rests on the fact that the scientific method actually works(all while claiming to be an engineer) then you're right, there isn't anything else to discuss. What else could possibly validate the scientific method other than the fact that it works?
Will update when/if there's more.
Dear Sye,
I know that you claim to be an engineer on Ray Comfort's site, this is a continual source of hilarity to me given the poor caliber of your arguments and your abysmal understanding of science.
Today you said,
"What is the evidence for the validity of the scientific method?"
My fiance, who is an actual registered Professional Engineer(P.Eng) in Canada would like me to point out that the evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering - which is applied science.
Of course, if you were a real University educated P.Eng, you'd know that already.
Have a nice night using circular logic to confuse people who are even stupider than you are.
Love,
Two atheists with real educations.
First reply from Sye,
Hello Meagan (I've always liked that name :-)
You said that the evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering??? How is that evidence for the validity of the scientific method???
Your argument would be like me saying: "The evidence for the existence of God is the profession of theology." Hardly an argument.
The scientific method is entirely dependent on the uniformity of nature. How does the profession of engineering justify the uniformity of nature?
Cheers,
Sye
First reply from me:
Sye,
"How is that evidence for the validity of the scientific method??? "
If the scientific method was not valid, it wouldn't be possible to apply it in the field of engineering. In example, it would not be possible to use the laws of electromagnetics to communicate via the internet if they were not discovered utilizing the scientific method. Engineering is simply applied science.
"How does the profession of engineering justify the uniformity of nature?"
The scientific method has absolutely nothing to do with the uniformity of nature. By saying that, it assumes that nature is uniform, but the fact that this is true hardly invalidates it.
You just brought this up out of nowhere, it has no context in our discussion.
"Your argument would be like me saying: "The evidence for the existence of God is the profession of theology." "
No, it's not. Engineering is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method. Theology is proof of the existence of organized religion, nothing more - seeing as god(s) are not testable and verifiable via the scientific method.
To make the correct analogy the existence of god would be proven by a real faith healer, and none of them have panned out yet.
Second reply from Sye:
Meagan,
"If the scientific method was not valid, it wouldn't be possible to apply it in the field of engineering."
Soooo, back to my question: "What is the evidence for the validity of the scientific method?"
"The scientific method has absolutely nothing to do with the uniformity of nature."
Well, then, I'm afraid it is you who does not understand the scientific method. Science can only be done because the future is assumed to behave like the past. Without that assumption, science would be impossible, problem is, the professed atheist has exactly zero basis for such an assumption. You should look for a smarter scientist to marry :-)
"By saying that, it assumes that nature is uniform, but the fact that this is true hardly invalidates it."
Huh, I just want to know on what basis you proceed with the assumption that nature is uniform?
"Your argument would be like me saying: "The evidence for the existence of God is the profession of theology." "
"No, it's not. Engineering is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method."
Yikes, do you realize what you are saying??? You are basically saying: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering, which is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method." YOWZA!
Cheers,
Sye
Second reply from me:
Sye,
"Soooo, back to my question: "What is the evidence for the validity of the scientific method?""
Just because you refuse to acknowledge my answer doesn't mean I didn't give one.
How about you go ahead and give me your evidence for the invalidity of the scientific method.
"Well, then, I'm afraid it is you who does not understand the scientific method. Science can only be done because the future is assumed to behave like the past. Without that assumption, science would be impossible, problem is, the professed atheist has exactly zero basis for such an assumption. You should look for a smarter scientist to marry :-)"
So, the fact that nature has been uniform for all of recorded history is not a basis for the assumption that it will continue to remain uniform? The uniformity of nature is a logical assumption based on the scientific evidence. All you're trying to get at is that god makes nature uniform, which as anyone who understands science would know, is unfounded and untestable and therefore a useless assertion. And even if there was a god who made nature uniform, how would that invalidate the scientific method?
And my fiance isn't a scientist, he's a professional engineer, maybe you'd know the difference if you had any actual accreditation.
"You are basically saying: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering, which is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method.""
That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't see what your problem is.
Third reply from Sye:
Meagan,
"Just because you refuse to acknowledge my answer doesn't mean I didn't give one."
Well, it sure wasn't much of an answer: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is that we use it." You don't see the problem there?
"How about you go ahead and give me your evidence for the invalidity of the scientific method."
Um, no, I DO believe that it is valid, the difference is that I can account for the foundation of the scientific method - the uniformity of nature, whereas you cannot.
"So, the fact that nature has been uniform for all of recorded history is not a basis for the assumption that it will continue to remain uniform?"
Yip. First of all, you are assuming the validity of your own reasoning to come to the conclusion that nature has been uniform, and you are begging the question, by assuming that the future WILL BE like the past, because the future HAS BEEN like the past, in the past. See, I'm not asking about the past, I want to know on what basis you assume that the scientific method is valid, not on what basis it HAS BEEN valid.
"The uniformity of nature is a logical assumption based on the scientific evidence."
Eeeeek, you're doing it again. You are saying: "The uniformity of nature is a logical assumption based on the scientific evidence which is based on the uniformity of nature."
"All you're trying to get at is that god makes nature uniform, which as anyone who understands science would know, is unfounded and untestable and therefore a useless assertion."
Please show me the foundation, and tests for the validity of that statement, then perhaps you could show me the foundation and the tests for the validity of the scientific method.
"And even if there was a god who made nature uniform, how would that invalidate the scientific method? "
Huh? I am not saying that the scientific method is invalid, I am saying that YOU cannot account for the validity of the scientific methos according to YOUR worldview.
"You are basically saying: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is the profession of engineering, which is based upon the principles of science that are testable and verifiable via the scientific method.""
"That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't see what your problem is."
Thanks for that admission! Perhaps we should just let it rest there then. If you can't see the problem with saying: The validity of the scientific method is verifiable via the scientific method, then there is no point in continuing.
Cheers,
Sye
Third reply from me:
Sye,
" Well, it sure wasn't much of an answer: "The evidence for the validity of the scientific method is that we use it." You don't see the problem there?"
Uh, no? If it wasn't valid, it wouldn't work. The scientific method is validated by the fact that it works.
"Yip. First of all, you are assuming the validity of your own reasoning to come to the conclusion that nature has been uniform, and you are begging the question, by assuming that the future WILL BE like the past, because the future HAS BEEN like the past, in the past. See, I'm not asking about the past, I want to know on what basis you assume that the scientific method is valid, not on what basis it HAS BEEN valid."
That's awfully silly. Why do you think it will stop? What evidence do you have that the uniformity of nature is not constant?
Trying to arbitrarily separate past knowledge and future knowledge is nonsensical. You've given me no reason to not continue to assume the uniformity of nature based on the fact that nature has always been uniform - you've just decided that I should.
And besides all that, looking to a deity(lets pretend one exists) to keep nature constant holds no logic or predictable power whatsoever. What if the deity decided to change the laws of nature tomorrow? On what basis are you assuming it won't?
It seems to me that an atheist has far more reason to assume the uniformity of nature, because there appears to be no agent of change, which is not the case with a theist.
"Eeeeek, you're doing it again. You are saying: "The uniformity of nature is a logical assumption based on the scientific evidence which is based on the uniformity of nature."
No, it assumes the uniformity of nature, it isn't BASED on the uniformity of nature. The fact that nature is uniform merely makes the scientists job alot easier.
"Please show me the foundation, and tests for the validity of that statement, then perhaps you could show me the foundation and the tests for the validity of the scientific method."
You're asking for something that doesn't make any sense. Why should I have to prove to you that something that cannot be tested or validated in any way is useless? It's common sense.
"Huh? I am not saying that the scientific method is invalid, I am saying that YOU cannot account for the validity of the scientific methos according to YOUR worldview."
That's a nonsensical assertion. As a rational person I can utilize my prior knowledge to assume future outcome. Your attempt to debase this is ridiculous. Saying we can never assume anything about anything without absolute knowledge(that you conveniently claim you get by believing in jesus) is as deep as a high school philosophy course.'We can't know anything for sure, man.'
"Thanks for that admission! Perhaps we should just let it rest there then. If you can't see the problem with saying: The validity of the scientific method is verifiable via the scientific method, then there is no point in continuing."
If you can't understand why the validity of the scientific method rests on the fact that the scientific method actually works(all while claiming to be an engineer) then you're right, there isn't anything else to discuss. What else could possibly validate the scientific method other than the fact that it works?
Will update when/if there's more.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Gigantic explanation...part 2.
Cynthia,
I'm very glad that I've helped you to have a better understanding of what the theory of evolution actually postulates. There is no greater compliment for someone like me than knowing that I've made science more accessible for someone! =)
Your new questions - I'll need to handle them separately - are:
Where did the single celled organisms come from?
And where did this common ancestor originate from?
Your first question veers directly out of the field of evolutionary biology. The definition of evolution is; "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species". What does this mean? Essentially the theory of evolution deals only with the diversification of species via natural selection. It has absolutely nothing to say whatsoever about how life or our universe began. The theory of evolution steps in at the moment that the first single celled organism arose - but has nothing to say about what cause it to be there in the first place. Please do not mistake this as a flaw in the theory of evolution - said theory is simply not interested in answering that question, the same way that the theory of aerodynamics isn't interested in the origin of life.
Fear not, though, the origin of life is so important that it has it's very own theory; Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the scientific study of how life emerged from inanimate and inorganic molecules. The current popular theory is that abiogenesis occurred some 4.5 billion years ago. Now, I know what you're thinking - how can something that's not alive make something that's alive? That's a very relevant question, and one that I will try to explain in the simplest terms possible - please be advised though that this is not my primary field of study.
Everything in existence is made up of atoms(atoms are minuscule objects with proportionately tiny masses that can only be observed individually using special instruments). I'm talking everything, you, me, my desk, a tree, Mars, the sun, a flea .....all made up of things called atoms. "The atom is the smallest possible uncharged unit of ordinary matter." Atoms are the building blocks of every solid, liquid and gas in the universe. Atoms are not 'alive'. They are not the same as 'cells', they are the building blocks of cells. Essentially, at a base level, everything in existence, everything alive and inanimate is made up of something that is inanimate. Your body is made up of live cells which are in turn made up of inanimate atoms. It's a weird concept. So, really, every living thing is made up of non-living things. It's simply the way in which atoms and types of atoms combine together that determines whether something is alive or not.
Basically, I just want you to understand that everything is made out of the same stuff.
Where this stuff comes from and how it got to earth and how it combined and when it originally sparked life becomes increasingly complicated. So complicated that I'm not comfortable attempting to pass on my limited knowledge, in case I misunderstand some of the theory. Abiogenesis takes what we know about atoms and amino acids and DNA/RNA and chemical compounds and discusses how these conditions brought about life. Truthfully, there is not any consensus yet amongst scientists, but there are several popular theories that I can't possibly explain. Abiogenesis is still being heavily researched.
If you'd like to know more than I can explain I encourage you to head on over to Talk Origins and look up Abiogenesis - some of the men and women who are doing the actual research have provided some great overviews and discussion.
Your second question had to do with where this common ancestor originated. Because of the phrasing of the question I'm not quite sure which common ancestor you're referring to. However, I'm going to move away from abiogenesis and the first single celled organism and back into biology - where I have some idea of what I'm talking about. ^_-
You quoted me discussing the common ancestors of chimps and humans and apes and monkeys. As I said earlier, the common ancestor of all living things was a single celled organism. And then things just kept diverging and evolving from there. So it's not really the right wording to ask where a common ancestor came from - because it can always be traced back further and further and further. It's a little harder to think of this 'backwards' so I'll use a diagram/analogy.
.........................x............................
Here's species 'x'. Species 'x' is a monkey-like creature(but is not necessarily a monkey as we think of them today because modern monkeys didn't exist yet). Species 'x' lives in a jungle like habitat surrounded by other species of animals. Some animals it lives peacefully with, some animals and insects will be eaten by species 'x' and some animals will try to eat species 'x'. All of these things combined with things like weather and climate make up species 'x's environment. Species 'x' is subject to environment pressures. Let's say that in this case species 'x' is competing with species 'b' for food. There are so many species 'x' and species 'b' that there isn't enough food for everyone. So, some members of species 'x' migrate out of the jungle in search of food.
..................x1.............................x2..............
Now we have two separate populations of species 'x'. Because some of the population left, the species 'x1' in the jungle is able to continue living the way they have been because the environmental pressure in regards to enough to eat has been alleviated.
Because some of species 'x2' left the jungle, the same skills that they used in the jungle may not be as good elsewhere - say out on the plains. There are different traits that are good for animals that live in trees and animals that live on the plains. Let's say that the ability to run fast helps any of the members of species 'x2' live longer in their new habitat. The members of the 'x2' population that are able to run the fastest have the most chance of escaping predators and living long enough to reproduce. So, when two members of 'x2' who can both run very fast reproduce, their offspring have a large chance of also being able to run fast. And then this 'run fast' gene keeps getting passed down through generations until virtually all members of group 'x2' can all run very fast.
So, let's say that over thousands of years, this 'x2' group has been adapting to the new environmental pressures of their habitat. And these pressures have 'naturally selected' members who can run fast. Some things that may help a species run fast is the formation and strength of the leg muscles, the streamlined shape of a body and flatter, less flexible feet. So, over these thousands of years, through environmental pressures, genetic mutations, genetic drift and some other nifty, complicated biological processes, species 'x2' has adapted to better suit their niche in their habitat. Species 'x2'looks alot different from when they first stepped onto the plains, lots of little changes have altered their over-all appearance.
Meanwhile, species 'x1' has stayed in their nice habitat in the jungle. They also have continued to adapt and have been subject to the pressures of natural selction. But because they live in a tree filled jungle instead of wide open plains, they have changed in different ways than group 'x2'.
After these thousands of years, 'x1' and 'x2' don't look so alike anymore, and if we were to examine their DNA, we would see genetic differences that were not there thousands of years ago. So, if they've changed enough, we can't rightfully call them 'x1' and 'x2' anymore, because they're no longer the same species.
Instead:
...............x1.............................x2..............
.............x1.................................x2........
...........x1.....................................x2...........
.........x1........................................x2.........
.......y.............................................z..........
The two groups of species 'x' have become so different, that they are now seperate species, species 'y' and species 'z'.
In this case, the common ancestor of species 'z' and species 'y' is species 'x'(who may or may not exist any longer).
This, in a nut shell, is the diversification of species via natural selection. But, take it further. The offspring of species 'z' splits off into several groups and due to natural selection end up being species 'a', 'd' and 'c'....their common ancestor would of course be 'z'.
I hope that this gives you a better understanding of what a 'common ancestor' is. The study of evolution allows us to trace the evolutionary path backwards or forwards.
I'm happy to answer any more questions you may have.
Have a nice afternoon.
I'm very glad that I've helped you to have a better understanding of what the theory of evolution actually postulates. There is no greater compliment for someone like me than knowing that I've made science more accessible for someone! =)
Your new questions - I'll need to handle them separately - are:
Where did the single celled organisms come from?
And where did this common ancestor originate from?
Your first question veers directly out of the field of evolutionary biology. The definition of evolution is; "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species". What does this mean? Essentially the theory of evolution deals only with the diversification of species via natural selection. It has absolutely nothing to say whatsoever about how life or our universe began. The theory of evolution steps in at the moment that the first single celled organism arose - but has nothing to say about what cause it to be there in the first place. Please do not mistake this as a flaw in the theory of evolution - said theory is simply not interested in answering that question, the same way that the theory of aerodynamics isn't interested in the origin of life.
Fear not, though, the origin of life is so important that it has it's very own theory; Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the scientific study of how life emerged from inanimate and inorganic molecules. The current popular theory is that abiogenesis occurred some 4.5 billion years ago. Now, I know what you're thinking - how can something that's not alive make something that's alive? That's a very relevant question, and one that I will try to explain in the simplest terms possible - please be advised though that this is not my primary field of study.
Everything in existence is made up of atoms(atoms are minuscule objects with proportionately tiny masses that can only be observed individually using special instruments). I'm talking everything, you, me, my desk, a tree, Mars, the sun, a flea .....all made up of things called atoms. "The atom is the smallest possible uncharged unit of ordinary matter." Atoms are the building blocks of every solid, liquid and gas in the universe. Atoms are not 'alive'. They are not the same as 'cells', they are the building blocks of cells. Essentially, at a base level, everything in existence, everything alive and inanimate is made up of something that is inanimate. Your body is made up of live cells which are in turn made up of inanimate atoms. It's a weird concept. So, really, every living thing is made up of non-living things. It's simply the way in which atoms and types of atoms combine together that determines whether something is alive or not.
Basically, I just want you to understand that everything is made out of the same stuff.
Where this stuff comes from and how it got to earth and how it combined and when it originally sparked life becomes increasingly complicated. So complicated that I'm not comfortable attempting to pass on my limited knowledge, in case I misunderstand some of the theory. Abiogenesis takes what we know about atoms and amino acids and DNA/RNA and chemical compounds and discusses how these conditions brought about life. Truthfully, there is not any consensus yet amongst scientists, but there are several popular theories that I can't possibly explain. Abiogenesis is still being heavily researched.
If you'd like to know more than I can explain I encourage you to head on over to Talk Origins and look up Abiogenesis - some of the men and women who are doing the actual research have provided some great overviews and discussion.
Your second question had to do with where this common ancestor originated. Because of the phrasing of the question I'm not quite sure which common ancestor you're referring to. However, I'm going to move away from abiogenesis and the first single celled organism and back into biology - where I have some idea of what I'm talking about. ^_-
You quoted me discussing the common ancestors of chimps and humans and apes and monkeys. As I said earlier, the common ancestor of all living things was a single celled organism. And then things just kept diverging and evolving from there. So it's not really the right wording to ask where a common ancestor came from - because it can always be traced back further and further and further. It's a little harder to think of this 'backwards' so I'll use a diagram/analogy.
.........................x............................
Here's species 'x'. Species 'x' is a monkey-like creature(but is not necessarily a monkey as we think of them today because modern monkeys didn't exist yet). Species 'x' lives in a jungle like habitat surrounded by other species of animals. Some animals it lives peacefully with, some animals and insects will be eaten by species 'x' and some animals will try to eat species 'x'. All of these things combined with things like weather and climate make up species 'x's environment. Species 'x' is subject to environment pressures. Let's say that in this case species 'x' is competing with species 'b' for food. There are so many species 'x' and species 'b' that there isn't enough food for everyone. So, some members of species 'x' migrate out of the jungle in search of food.
..................x1.............................x2..............
Now we have two separate populations of species 'x'. Because some of the population left, the species 'x1' in the jungle is able to continue living the way they have been because the environmental pressure in regards to enough to eat has been alleviated.
Because some of species 'x2' left the jungle, the same skills that they used in the jungle may not be as good elsewhere - say out on the plains. There are different traits that are good for animals that live in trees and animals that live on the plains. Let's say that the ability to run fast helps any of the members of species 'x2' live longer in their new habitat. The members of the 'x2' population that are able to run the fastest have the most chance of escaping predators and living long enough to reproduce. So, when two members of 'x2' who can both run very fast reproduce, their offspring have a large chance of also being able to run fast. And then this 'run fast' gene keeps getting passed down through generations until virtually all members of group 'x2' can all run very fast.
So, let's say that over thousands of years, this 'x2' group has been adapting to the new environmental pressures of their habitat. And these pressures have 'naturally selected' members who can run fast. Some things that may help a species run fast is the formation and strength of the leg muscles, the streamlined shape of a body and flatter, less flexible feet. So, over these thousands of years, through environmental pressures, genetic mutations, genetic drift and some other nifty, complicated biological processes, species 'x2' has adapted to better suit their niche in their habitat. Species 'x2'looks alot different from when they first stepped onto the plains, lots of little changes have altered their over-all appearance.
Meanwhile, species 'x1' has stayed in their nice habitat in the jungle. They also have continued to adapt and have been subject to the pressures of natural selction. But because they live in a tree filled jungle instead of wide open plains, they have changed in different ways than group 'x2'.
After these thousands of years, 'x1' and 'x2' don't look so alike anymore, and if we were to examine their DNA, we would see genetic differences that were not there thousands of years ago. So, if they've changed enough, we can't rightfully call them 'x1' and 'x2' anymore, because they're no longer the same species.
Instead:
...............x1.............................x2..............
.............x1.................................x2........
...........x1.....................................x2...........
.........x1........................................x2.........
.......y.............................................z..........
The two groups of species 'x' have become so different, that they are now seperate species, species 'y' and species 'z'.
In this case, the common ancestor of species 'z' and species 'y' is species 'x'(who may or may not exist any longer).
This, in a nut shell, is the diversification of species via natural selection. But, take it further. The offspring of species 'z' splits off into several groups and due to natural selection end up being species 'a', 'd' and 'c'....their common ancestor would of course be 'z'.
I hope that this gives you a better understanding of what a 'common ancestor' is. The study of evolution allows us to trace the evolutionary path backwards or forwards.
I'm happy to answer any more questions you may have.
Have a nice afternoon.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Copied here in case Ray doesn't post it.....
Hi Cynthia,
I'm sorry, I must have missed your question - these threads fill up so quickly.
"Where are you saying evolution says we came from then?"
That's quite the question in and of itself.
Obviously evolution shows us that we(and yes, I know it's hard to conceptualize - not just for you, but everyone) share a common ancestor with every single living thing on the planet. Life started out as single celled organisms.
However, I believe that you were referring specifically to my objection to the notion that humans 'came from' monkeys.
My objection stems from the fact that this type of misunderstanding belies a total ignorance on how evolution works and what science says we are. Scientists have never claimed that humans come from monkeys. We don't. Let's repeat that. I am an atheist, I accept evolution, I have studied Biology - HUMANS DO NOT 'COME FROM' MONKEYS. There has never, anywhere, at any time, been a monkey that gave birth to a human. We are RELATED to monkeys, but we're also related to all mammals.
Let's explore this.
The first thing you need to know is that science uses a system of biological classification to 'organize' all of the diverse living organisms on this planet of ours. A common misconception is that humans are the 'pinnacle' of existence, and everything is 'less evolved' than we are. This is untrue. The modern cheetah is just as 'evolved' as a human is. We are merely evolved to do very different things and fill very different biological niches.
Let's look at this classification system:
Human Beings
(Homo sapiens sapiens)
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species:H. sapiens
Subspecies:H. s. sapiens
So basically, this classification is telling us that we are mammals in the order of primates, our family is hominidae and our species is Homo sapiens, our subspecies is Homo sapiens sapiens. We have a subspecies classification because we know of other extinct homo sapiens that were very close to modern humans, but not quite.
When people say that we 'come from' monkeys, they don't quite understand that the term 'monkey' refers to a huge group of animals. What most people mean by 'monkey' is 'primate'. Humans are a member of the order of primates - but the amount of species included in this order is huge and the species are very diverse. The order of primate includes everything from mountain gorillas to a common squirrel monkey.
Although humans and monkeys are classified both as primates, this is as far as our related-ness goes.
In the order of primates, there are three major groupings of simian primates. A monkey is a member of either new world or old world monkeys. There is a third, separate group called Apes.
If we move away from order, and move down to family, humans are classified as Hominidae - we share this classification with all of the other great apes; humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. Apes and Monkeys are both PRIMATES, but they are part of completely separate families. There was a point where Monkeys and Apes shared a common ancestor, but that was long long before Humans. There are many important differences between Apes and Monkeys, and knowing these differences helps to properly conceptualize the difference between saying humans 'come from monkeys' and saying that 'humans share a common ancestor with the other great apes.' One of the main differences between Apes and Monkeys is the absence of a tail. No Apes have tails, which is a common trait amongst monkeys. Apes are generally larger than Monkeys. Apes rely more on their sense of vision as opposed to smell like Monkeys do. Apes are capable of creating tools and using language.
Within the family of Apes, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees.The most recent data shows us that we share between 95% - 99% of our genetic material with chimps. Our DNA is so closely related that we can actually pass diseases back and forth - which is why there's usually glass between Apes and the spectators in zoos. Like humans, chimps can make tools to aid in food gathering and consumption, they engage in social and cultural behaviours, they use language, they display instances of emotion(mourning death, romantic love, empathy towards other species - they've been seen feeding things like turtles, etc) and they even laugh.
"It has been estimated that the human lineage diverged from that of chimpanzees about five million years ago, and from that of gorillas about eight million years ago."
This means that Humans shared a common ancestor with chimps five million years ago. This common ancestor was neither a chimp nor a human. This common ancestor had two(or more) population groups that became separated(usually geographically) because of environmental pressures(ie, competition for food). As the two populations adapted to the environments around them, small changes in the population combined with natural selection eventually diversified this common ancestor. One group evolved into chimpanzees - over 5 million years. One group evolved into humans - over five million years. Neither chimps or humans 'came from' each other, we simply shared a common ancestor millions of years ago, in the same way that a poodle and a doberman shared an ancestor thousands of years ago.
In conclusion, Apes and Monkeys are both Primates, but very different. Humans are part of the same family as Apes, not Monkeys. Humans are classified as part of the Great Ape family because of our genetic similarities and the fossil evidence(if you're interested, I would be more than happy to provide you with pictures and charts and graphs and additional reading ^_^ ) of our common ancestors and close evolutionary paths.
I hope you can see now why the idea that humans 'come from' monkeys is one that is outdated and does not reflect what the evolutionary theory actually postulates.
I'll post a copy of this on my personal blog - it may be easier to read that way.
I'm sorry, I must have missed your question - these threads fill up so quickly.
"Where are you saying evolution says we came from then?"
That's quite the question in and of itself.
Obviously evolution shows us that we(and yes, I know it's hard to conceptualize - not just for you, but everyone) share a common ancestor with every single living thing on the planet. Life started out as single celled organisms.
However, I believe that you were referring specifically to my objection to the notion that humans 'came from' monkeys.
My objection stems from the fact that this type of misunderstanding belies a total ignorance on how evolution works and what science says we are. Scientists have never claimed that humans come from monkeys. We don't. Let's repeat that. I am an atheist, I accept evolution, I have studied Biology - HUMANS DO NOT 'COME FROM' MONKEYS. There has never, anywhere, at any time, been a monkey that gave birth to a human. We are RELATED to monkeys, but we're also related to all mammals.
Let's explore this.
The first thing you need to know is that science uses a system of biological classification to 'organize' all of the diverse living organisms on this planet of ours. A common misconception is that humans are the 'pinnacle' of existence, and everything is 'less evolved' than we are. This is untrue. The modern cheetah is just as 'evolved' as a human is. We are merely evolved to do very different things and fill very different biological niches.
Let's look at this classification system:
Human Beings
(Homo sapiens sapiens)
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species:H. sapiens
Subspecies:H. s. sapiens
So basically, this classification is telling us that we are mammals in the order of primates, our family is hominidae and our species is Homo sapiens, our subspecies is Homo sapiens sapiens. We have a subspecies classification because we know of other extinct homo sapiens that were very close to modern humans, but not quite.
When people say that we 'come from' monkeys, they don't quite understand that the term 'monkey' refers to a huge group of animals. What most people mean by 'monkey' is 'primate'. Humans are a member of the order of primates - but the amount of species included in this order is huge and the species are very diverse. The order of primate includes everything from mountain gorillas to a common squirrel monkey.
Although humans and monkeys are classified both as primates, this is as far as our related-ness goes.
In the order of primates, there are three major groupings of simian primates. A monkey is a member of either new world or old world monkeys. There is a third, separate group called Apes.
If we move away from order, and move down to family, humans are classified as Hominidae - we share this classification with all of the other great apes; humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. Apes and Monkeys are both PRIMATES, but they are part of completely separate families. There was a point where Monkeys and Apes shared a common ancestor, but that was long long before Humans. There are many important differences between Apes and Monkeys, and knowing these differences helps to properly conceptualize the difference between saying humans 'come from monkeys' and saying that 'humans share a common ancestor with the other great apes.' One of the main differences between Apes and Monkeys is the absence of a tail. No Apes have tails, which is a common trait amongst monkeys. Apes are generally larger than Monkeys. Apes rely more on their sense of vision as opposed to smell like Monkeys do. Apes are capable of creating tools and using language.
Within the family of Apes, humans are most closely related to chimpanzees.The most recent data shows us that we share between 95% - 99% of our genetic material with chimps. Our DNA is so closely related that we can actually pass diseases back and forth - which is why there's usually glass between Apes and the spectators in zoos. Like humans, chimps can make tools to aid in food gathering and consumption, they engage in social and cultural behaviours, they use language, they display instances of emotion(mourning death, romantic love, empathy towards other species - they've been seen feeding things like turtles, etc) and they even laugh.
"It has been estimated that the human lineage diverged from that of chimpanzees about five million years ago, and from that of gorillas about eight million years ago."
This means that Humans shared a common ancestor with chimps five million years ago. This common ancestor was neither a chimp nor a human. This common ancestor had two(or more) population groups that became separated(usually geographically) because of environmental pressures(ie, competition for food). As the two populations adapted to the environments around them, small changes in the population combined with natural selection eventually diversified this common ancestor. One group evolved into chimpanzees - over 5 million years. One group evolved into humans - over five million years. Neither chimps or humans 'came from' each other, we simply shared a common ancestor millions of years ago, in the same way that a poodle and a doberman shared an ancestor thousands of years ago.
In conclusion, Apes and Monkeys are both Primates, but very different. Humans are part of the same family as Apes, not Monkeys. Humans are classified as part of the Great Ape family because of our genetic similarities and the fossil evidence(if you're interested, I would be more than happy to provide you with pictures and charts and graphs and additional reading ^_^ ) of our common ancestors and close evolutionary paths.
I hope you can see now why the idea that humans 'come from' monkeys is one that is outdated and does not reflect what the evolutionary theory actually postulates.
I'll post a copy of this on my personal blog - it may be easier to read that way.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
I encourage all of you to check out The Atheist Nexus.
It's a new Atheist only networking site(a la Facebook, Myspace, etc) where you can meet people with similar ideas, debate, find great book recommendations and find links to other great blogs.
It's a new Atheist only networking site(a la Facebook, Myspace, etc) where you can meet people with similar ideas, debate, find great book recommendations and find links to other great blogs.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
What Does Creationism Offer?
The Theory of Evolution has explanatory properties. When a problem arises(ie. new flu strain), scientists can utilize the ToE to create a testable hypothesis and then attempt to solve the problem(in this case create a new vaccine) - drawing from the vast amounts of information that evolutionary biology tells us about the world around us and the particular problem they're working on.
In short, ToE has explanatory power - we can use it to predict outcomes and answer complex biological questions.
What does Creationism offer within this same paradigm? If Evolution had not been discovered and was not understood, what explanatory power could Creationism offer us? How would it help us to cope with or solve an issue such as a new flu strain?
Creationism would certainly not be able to identify and create a new vaccine for a flu virus based only on the assumption that god has created this virus. And of course the idea that a loving god willingly creates viruses and diseases to kill the humans he apparently loved enough to kill his son for presents its own idealogical challenges.
How do Creationists deal with this stumbling block? How can you rally against biology when it is ever present in all aspects of your life? Does your ideology offer a reasonable alternative that can explain all the same things that Evolution can?
If Creationism cannot offer a testable, verifiable and USEFUL alternative to all of the knowledge that ToE offers, then of what use is it to us?
Thousands of years ago, before science, we as humans did not understand the world around us. We blamed a god(s) for any and everything that happened. We had a god for the thunder, a god of the rain, a god of wind and snow and earth and harvest and the animals around us. Nowadays, through science, we understand how all of these things(and everything else) is a naturally occurring process. We no longer need a god to explain thunder, lightning, wind, poor harvests, disease - we know WHY and HOW these things happen. We know that Zeus is not hurling lightning bolts at us, and that the sea is not angry because of Posideon. We have moved BEYOND these primitive superstitions to real understanding.
What Creationists are advocating is a huge step backwards in the progress of humankind. Going from being able to explain how something works, to stating 'goddidit' is NOT progress. And saying that god has done something is not really explaining much of anything. If all of us were content to believe that 'goddidit', we wouldn't be enjoying the level of technology that you are currently immersed in. We wouldn't have this level of medical care - which is DIRECTLY related to biology and ToE. Things like vaccines, animal testing, genetic defects, the germ theory, and a million more are directly related to or because of evolution. Take ToE away, and none of these things make sense to us anymore. Biology ONLY makes sense within the confines of Evolution - and I can't even begin to espouse the benefits that we receive from modern biology.
In closing, you are attempting to trade a theory with explanatory power that can make testable predictions, for an idea that humankind first dreamed up at our conception. You want our Western Civilization to have the same level of understanding that our ancestors did 10,000 years ago. You want to roll back the clock on human progress simply so that you don't have to entertain the possibility that perhaps the bible isn't inerrant, perhaps we are not special creatures who rule over a universe we can't even comprehend let alone get to, that we probably DON'T have any form of afterlife, that we are in fact mortal creatures like any other on this planet of ours.
If that's the posistion you want to hold, then fine. But at least understand what that posistion entails.
In short, ToE has explanatory power - we can use it to predict outcomes and answer complex biological questions.
What does Creationism offer within this same paradigm? If Evolution had not been discovered and was not understood, what explanatory power could Creationism offer us? How would it help us to cope with or solve an issue such as a new flu strain?
Creationism would certainly not be able to identify and create a new vaccine for a flu virus based only on the assumption that god has created this virus. And of course the idea that a loving god willingly creates viruses and diseases to kill the humans he apparently loved enough to kill his son for presents its own idealogical challenges.
How do Creationists deal with this stumbling block? How can you rally against biology when it is ever present in all aspects of your life? Does your ideology offer a reasonable alternative that can explain all the same things that Evolution can?
If Creationism cannot offer a testable, verifiable and USEFUL alternative to all of the knowledge that ToE offers, then of what use is it to us?
Thousands of years ago, before science, we as humans did not understand the world around us. We blamed a god(s) for any and everything that happened. We had a god for the thunder, a god of the rain, a god of wind and snow and earth and harvest and the animals around us. Nowadays, through science, we understand how all of these things(and everything else) is a naturally occurring process. We no longer need a god to explain thunder, lightning, wind, poor harvests, disease - we know WHY and HOW these things happen. We know that Zeus is not hurling lightning bolts at us, and that the sea is not angry because of Posideon. We have moved BEYOND these primitive superstitions to real understanding.
What Creationists are advocating is a huge step backwards in the progress of humankind. Going from being able to explain how something works, to stating 'goddidit' is NOT progress. And saying that god has done something is not really explaining much of anything. If all of us were content to believe that 'goddidit', we wouldn't be enjoying the level of technology that you are currently immersed in. We wouldn't have this level of medical care - which is DIRECTLY related to biology and ToE. Things like vaccines, animal testing, genetic defects, the germ theory, and a million more are directly related to or because of evolution. Take ToE away, and none of these things make sense to us anymore. Biology ONLY makes sense within the confines of Evolution - and I can't even begin to espouse the benefits that we receive from modern biology.
In closing, you are attempting to trade a theory with explanatory power that can make testable predictions, for an idea that humankind first dreamed up at our conception. You want our Western Civilization to have the same level of understanding that our ancestors did 10,000 years ago. You want to roll back the clock on human progress simply so that you don't have to entertain the possibility that perhaps the bible isn't inerrant, perhaps we are not special creatures who rule over a universe we can't even comprehend let alone get to, that we probably DON'T have any form of afterlife, that we are in fact mortal creatures like any other on this planet of ours.
If that's the posistion you want to hold, then fine. But at least understand what that posistion entails.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
