Originally posted by KellyJayThe nature of your attack on Evolution has been pretty clear from the start.
Yea, when I get accused of saying something I didn't say, after awhile
I find defending myself when he refuses to back up his statement
a waist of my time.
Kelly
Going on about small changes being okay but large changes not.
Some strange stuff about science being about humans and faith.
And so on.
When Scottish presented to you some abstracts from scientific papers about evolution you balked at reading them.
So, if you're going to present arguments or points of view be prepared for counters to these, and don't start sooking when you are picked up on the flaws in your position.
Originally posted by amannionYes, the nature of my attack has been very clear from the on set
The nature of your attack on Evolution has been pretty clear from the start.
Going on about small changes being okay but large changes not.
Some strange stuff about science being about humans and faith.
And so on.
When Scottish presented to you some abstracts from scientific papers about evolution you balked at reading them.
So, if you're going to ...[text shortened]... unters to these, and don't start sooking when you are picked up on the flaws in your position.
and I have not changed it either, but I did not say what Scott is
accusing me saying. You can argue against my points I don't care,
Scott can give me things to read I will I'm not going to take his pop
quizzes and when he starts to twist my words into something I did
not say, he will be challenged to post what he has accused me of
saying. If all he wants to do is hide behind you and others who don't
mind sticking up for him instead of defending his statements that
to is up to him. I have not called anything "not science" or even
not hardly science, I have said that simply being within the realm
of science does not make it true or false. You can blast me for that
all day long I don't have a problem defending my position, I just
have trouble defending what he claims my position is, because they
are not the same thing. Thank you for noticing I have not changed
my attack, because that is what he is claiming I did. If I made a
mistake while writing, or he misread what I wrote I don’t know and
will never know, why, because he has refused to give me the
exact quote.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm not defending anyone, and certainly wouldn't defend Scottish. I don't ever recall him mentioning a 'pop quiz' - (and what the hell is a pop quiz anyway?) - but so what? If he did or didn't, it's pretty much irrelevant, since you 're clearly not interested in responding anyway.
Yes, the nature of my attack has been very clear from the on set
and I have not changed it either, but I did not say what Scott is
accusing me saying. You can argue against my points I don't care,
Scott can give me things to read I will I'm not going to take his pop
quizzes and when he starts to twist my words into something I did
not say, he will be c ...[text shortened]... know and
will never know, why, because he has refused to give me the
exact quote.
Kelly
You're right, I don't think you've changed your mind at all - over 1500 or so posts you've stuck to your guns, which might be admirable except for the ridiculousness of what it is that you're actually sticking too.
Which I think deep down in the back of your mind you know - don't you.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThis is a good question. But there could be other answers then what you propose.
so why, in the fossil record, do we see a continuum from simple bacteria dated nearly 4 billion years old, through to the earliest multicellular organisms (def 550 mya, poss as old as 1bya), then organisms of increasing complexity with decreasing age? You can wax as lyrical as you like about "interpreting evidence as faith"; it is nothing of the sort - ...[text shortened]... gma is no longer the prevalent idea about the central place of man (i.e. you) in the universe.
One looks at the evidence and sees "Big Time" - a lengthy process of gradual transmutation. Yet another looks at the evidence and sees "Big Mind". It is possible that the intellegence behind the design of these systems has arranged them so that those at the top, so to speak, of the pyramid have a self appreciation about their uniqueness. The heirarchy of life cultivates in man a self awareness of his connection to all other life and yet his superiority to them all.
It is not impossible. If the designing intelligence has purpose and plan, it could be that built into this vast pyramid of living things is a scheme intended to cultivate human awareness of utmost human uniqueness among living things.
You have to admit that the closest other animal to a human being is far off from in terms of language, self consciousness, spirituality, etc. I mean dolphins and chimps are great. But humanity still seems to be in a class all its own. As wonderful as ants, termites, whales, and gorillas are, we humans still seem to be at the pinnacle of this scheme of life.
The ascendency of life can be seen as the result of long time and gradual transmutation. Or it could be seen as a result of a more static scheme purposely designed to engendor within us humans a sense of our unique position at the top of the pyramid of living things.
The implications of the latter may be more religious or philosophical. But I don't think in means we have any less time to explore the mechanics of what makes these life systems different on a scientific level. There can be a designer with purpose and we are still left with plenty of science to research.
Originally posted by jaywillWhat you say may be correct, but it isn't something that science can investigate.
This is a good question. But there could be other answers then what you propose.
One looks at the evidence and sees "Big Time" - a lengthy process of gradual transmutation. Yet another looks at the evidence and sees "Big Mind". It is possible that the intellegence behind the design of these systems has arranged them so that those at the top, so to speak ...[text shortened]... re can be a designer with purpose and we are still left with plenty of science to research.
God, or some other intelligence may have designed everything to give us a 'self aapreciation' about our uniqueness.
But how could we possibly test such a hypothesis.
The point of many posts in this thread is that evolution is a testable theory, a falsifiable theory, and to be honest a relatively simple theory - ID and creationism are not any of these things and clearly fail the test of science.
This isn't to say they don't have a place in our world - they just don't belong in a science class.
And it's not to place some paramount faith in evolution either - it's merely the theory that best fits our current understandings and the current data.
As for the idea that we are somehow the 'pinnacle' of life.
You mistake evolution for progression.
Evolution does not progress. It merely suffices.
That is, things don't get better over time; species don't get faster, or taller or stronger or smarter. They merely survive. And evolution allows them to continue to survive in the face of changing environments.
Or not - in which case they don't survive.
Evolution is not a sympathetic theory.
But there is no pinnacle of life; no hierarchy.
There's just life.
Kelly,
I really think we are getting distracted on what amounts to nothing more than some in-artful language and some lazy reading comprehension. I will try to explain it from my point of view and perhaps both you and scottish can see where things got bogged down.
As near as I can tell this is the message that scottish objected to:
You know you can call it scientific and believe it or not, it is still what
people come up with. Science is not disconnected from the human
race, it is still people at our best as we apply ourselves to know
anything.
Kelly
Now, Kelly, I think you know me to be a fairly straight shooter and I will tell you that it is pretty easy to infer from this message that you are calling the TOE not science. When you say "you can call it scientific" to my eyes/ears it seems you are talking about evolution needing to be "called" scientific because it is not actually science. Why else would you say "you can call it scientific" if not to express a belief that it is not.
For instance, imagine for a moment that you and I are having a conversation about a dog. At some point you say, to me, the following: "Well, Andrew, you can call it a cat all you want but that doesn't make it one." You see? It is just another way to tell me that the dog is not a cat. Scottish is under the impression you were using the same sentence structure/verb scheme to tell him that the TOE is not science.
Now, I don't think that is actually what you were trying to say but I think I have demonstrated that it would be easy to think otherwise.
I think what you wanted to say is that just because somebody comes up with some idea that happens to fall under the category of science does not make it true. For instance, it is my impression that a quark is a small sea dwelling creature that lives at the bottom of the ocean in a society much like our own. I'm talking about a scientific term but my idea about it is clearly wrong.
What is my solution to this distraction in what was otherwise a decent message thread?
I think you should concede that your message could have easily been read to say what scottish has accused you of saying and I think scottish should apologize to you for going all crazy about it before stopping to think about what you likely meant...as, I think, I did.
So how about it? Kelly, Scottish can we bury the hatchet and move on from this silliness?
Originally posted by TheSkipper"Woah Kelly,
Kelly,
I really think we are getting distracted on what amounts to nothing more than some in-artful language and some lazy reading comprehension. I will try to explain it from my point of view and perhaps both you and scottish can see where things got bogged down.
As near as I can tell this is the message that scottish objected to:
You know you ...[text shortened]... w about it? Kelly, Scottish can we bury the hatchet and move on from this silliness?
You claimed that evolutionary biology isn't science. I provided you with the abstracts of 3 evolutionary biology papers, and asked you to show me, for my education, which parts I was mistaken in believing to be science."
Before you get into a 3rd post wondering if that was the one Scott
was objecting over, do you see me saying anything about
evolutionary biology in that quote of mine? I do not have problem
one with dropping it, I do not have problem one with admitting I
screwed it up if I did, the issue is I do not know what post he has
been jumping up and down over. Unlike you, Scott has been
unwilling to provide the quote he is upset about so now you are
into your 2nd guess on what it could possibly be. Unless he shows
me what was said, why he took it the way he did I'll just let it go,
he isn't worth the time and trouble if all he wants to do is cry about
something that he is unwilling or able to produce.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayFine, you want it. Here, I'll bring it - again.
"Woah Kelly,
You claimed that evolutionary biology isn't science. I provided you with the abstracts of 3 evolutionary biology papers, and asked you to show me, for my education, which parts I was mistaken in believing to be science."
Before you get into a 3rd post wondering if that was the one Scott
was objecting over, do you see me saying anything all he wants to do is cry about
something that he is unwilling or able to produce.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnz
Evolution is a scientific theory! It's not just some crackpot idea that someone came up with. There is as much evidence for evolution as there is for gravity! I can, should, and will teach evolution. Not to do so would be the absolute lunacy that only a creationist could possibly dream up!
Posted by KellyJay
It is an idea someone came up with, if it is true or not is the question.
Calling it science doesn't mean it occured the way it is presented.
Kelly
You are inferring that the study of Evolutionary biology is not science. You are simply using "science" as a label, however, of course, science is more than that - it is a whole mode of investigation, based on physical evidence.
I presented you with the abstracts to three scientific papers on evolutionary biology, and asked you to show me why they are not science. YOU REFUSED TO EVEN LOOK AT THEM.
Sorry Kelly, but you've only shown yourself to be small minded.
Originally posted by amannionThe words "pop quiz" were first bruoght up by Kelly, although he'll probably deny that too.
I'm not defending anyone, and certainly wouldn't defend Scottish. I don't ever recall him mentioning a 'pop quiz' - (and what the hell is a pop quiz anyway?) - but so what? If he did or didn't, it's pretty much irrelevant, since you 're clearly not interested in responding anyway.
You're right, I don't think you've changed your mind at all - over 1500 or s ...[text shortened]... cking too.
Which I think deep down in the back of your mind you know - don't you.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Ok consider the concept of an entity (the form of which is for the moment irrelevant, but which I will for the moment anthropomorphise for clarity and narrative structure) with amazing design skills and knowledge, that border on if not reach 'perfection' and who decides to design and build earth and all the creatures on it at some point around 6000 years ago (simply picking popular numbers for the sake of having numbers). This entity being near perfect built the world in one go, exactly how they wanted it to be built, they’re every designed creature a masterpiece. Now consider that the entity isn't quite perfect, that they have, limited, fallibility. Now this entity can make mistakes, it might take more than one attempt to get creatures right, some trial and error is involved, experiments to detect flaws in the plan and to iron out glitches. Now gradually reduce the 'perfection', the skill, the knowledge, of this entity, more and more experimentation is required to determine what a 'good' design might be, initial designs have small random changes made to them to see what effect this has on the creatures effectiveness and performance, finally when this entity reaches the antithesis of perfection, then it functions purely by making random changes to random constructs, and simply using those which perform best.
If you can except the concept of the first entity, an intelligent designer if you will, then you have to accept that a slightly lesser intelligence might be able to effect the same results, given slightly more time and the ability to conduct trial and error experiment. This logical chain of reasoning will take you all the way from the Intelligent designer to the dumb designer, who only makes random changes. If you can allow for the dumb designer then you must allow that it would be no superior to the random small changes you 'allow' happen and have been observed in the world today. In which case you have to accept that evolution by natural means must be possible, As evolution has vast stores of evidence to back it up, is the simpler explanation, can be used to make useful predictions, and importantly, there is no counter evidence of a designer of any kind, then you should accept evolution as true and the creation hypothesis as false. But that requires you to be rational, this is where the theist and the scientist separate, theism isn't rational, and thus isn't open too rational logic.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNice one GF - I like your thinking.
Ok consider the concept of an entity (the form of which is for the moment irrelevant, but which I will for the moment anthropomorphise for clarity and narrative structure) with amazing design skills and knowledge, that border on if not reach 'perfection' and who decides to design and build earth and all the creatures on it at some point around 6000 years ...[text shortened]... he scientist separate, theism isn't rational, and thus isn't open too rational logic.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYes, I do want it; I’m glad you noticed and finely came around to
Fine, you want it. Here, I'll bring it - again.
Originally posted by scottishinnz
Evolution is a scientific theory! It's not just some crackpot idea that someone came up with. There is as much evidence for evolution as there is for gravity! I can, should, and will teach evolution. Not to do so would be the absolute lunacy that only a creationist co ...[text shortened]... TO EVEN LOOK AT THEM.
Sorry Kelly, but you've only shown yourself to be small minded.
posting this so we can clear it up. You can call evolutionary biology
science or not, it does not now, nor has it ever mattered to me if it is
called science or not. I have been very clear on this point forever, and
I believe even you have agreed with me on why that is true. Reality is
what it is, it doesn’t matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks, man’s
thoughts do not change the universe only our perceptions of it, if the
universe is 5 billion years old, or 7 thousand years old my beliefs do
not change the age of the universe as yours does not.
Evolution did not pop out of the sky by itself, it had Darwin and others
push the idea and other people took up the idea and believe it is the
truth of how life has changed from when it began till now. Now did I
call any of them a crack pot, that is how you deal with people that you
disagree with not me. I have not slammed science, I have not
belittled science, as near as I can tell it is as close to something holy
in your life as it gets so I wouldn’t insult it. Science is a mode of
investigation, and it is based on physical evidence, not disputing that,
never have, but I do disagree with some of the conclusions others
have come up with while looking at the universe and applying science.
You presented me a little test you came up with, I refused to take it,
I called it a pop quiz, and that is how I still view it. If you want to
present something to look at without the quiz attached, fine I’ll look
at it. If you think your pop quizzes are evidence for evolution and by
avoiding taking your quiz is to hide from what could show me
evolution, the world should be beating down the door to your class
room, you’d be that important. If you think that makes me small
minded, than color me small minded, I can live with that.
Kelly