I trust, I trust, I trust.. I like that IBCoupe, it almost sounds as if it is a confession of belief.

IBCoupe wrote:

Cold_Zero wrote:I suspect there is a bigger reason why this matters. A reason not related to one’s ability to govern well, but a personal reason for those to get upset with people who ‘deny evolution.’

if nothing else, I'd like to think I've given you reason to abandon those suspicions. There are legitimate concerns with the largely anti-science stance of the current crop of Republican legislators, exhibited most disturbingly by a rejection of one of the most basic and uncontroversial areas of scientific understanding: evolution.

Let me clarify, I wasnt necessarily talking about you.

1. Trial and error. EDIT: Scientists have discovered that the transition from single- to multicellular organisms was not smooth. Over millennia, species went back and forth as they evolved.
http://classic.the-scientist.com/news/display/58023/

2. It doesn't. It doesn't because not all genetic mutations render an organism infertile.

3. There are single-celled fungi that periodically act in concert for the survival of the species in the Amazon rainforest today. That sure smells like a transitory species, doesn't it?

?

Cold_Zero wrote:So when Stebo asks for an example in our lifetime, you retort 'You want to see the process happen in live time? If so, you fail to understand evolution.'

One of the fundamentals is that it's taken place over billions of years. "Not in our lifetime" is beyond an understatement.

Cold_Zero wrote:Might I ask Matt (and maybe we should take this offline) what does it really matter if a Political Candidate for the President of the United States denies Evilution? What does it change? It is one of those issues that I scratch my head and wonder why people (other than biblical Christians) get bent out of shape over it. I suspect there is some ulterior motive behind the getting bent out of shape.

It really doesn't change anything. They are just pandering to already-ignorant voters.

It just pisses me off because it gives people an excuse and a figurehead to fall back on when denying evolution.

If someone tells me they don't believe in evolution, I already know a few things:

1. They might be ignorant.
2. They might not be ignorant, but may be in denial.
3. They might be lying about their beliefs to pander to others.
4. They might have a conflicting belief that is most likely not based in science that holds them back from accepting reality.

At least Ron Paul is open about the fact that his religion gets in the way.

Fair enough, but I don't like it.

I often suspected that the reason why Evolutionists claim the earth is so old is because they need this extended timeline to make their theory statistically plausible.

And I am sorry Isaac, I don’t think that Religion specifically Christianity is anti scientific. If it where we would not have the rich tradition of Christian scientists from history and we sure as s*** wouldn’t have currently Christians in scientific fields, like say a microbiologist that works for Eli Lilly that I know. I think that label is just a lame attempt by people who put their trust in Science to make Christians look like they are backwards.

Cold_Zero wrote:So when Stebo asks for an example in our lifetime, you retort 'You want to see the process happen in live time? If so, you fail to understand evolution.'

Basically you are implying it takes to long (too many years) for us to see, but we should trust you or scientists on that.

Precisely. Evolution takes a long time. You live a short time. You get to look at where we've been (fossils) and where we are now to determine what's going on.

Don't trust me, research it for yourself! That's what science is all about! This is not about trust, this is about what can and cannot be tested.

Cold_Zero wrote: 1. How do you get around the issue that most mutations end up in the organism being sterile or in poor health? Yet it appears that natural selection implies it is a good thing.

It's not about good or bad in the moral sense of those words.

Organisms that thrive are around, those without the tools necessary to survive die off (in HUGE numbers all the time).

How about the good mutations. Like tall people that live long lives. If tall people are born and breed with more tall people, you get more tall people. If they out-breed short people, you get more tall people than short people. If that trend continues, you can say goodbye to short people for the most part.

Mutations that work will allow the organisms to survive. Those that don't (sterility, poor health) will force the organism to die off. It's just how it goes, free from moral judgements.

Cold_Zero wrote: 2. How do you get around the issue that the entire species has to evolve at the same rate, over such a vast period of time? And that the mutation or evolving between multiple organisms have to keep up at least in pairs once the organism has bridged over to a species that has to have both a male and a female?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Entire species don't evolve at the same rate, per se. That is the mechanism of natural selection at work.

Humans, for example, have evolved at different paces. This is obvious in differences of visual appearance, and even right down to the cellular level. Think skin color.

The second part I just don't understand. Perhaps you could re-phrase?

Cold_Zero wrote: 3. Here are the examples of organisms jumping from one species to another? Specifically, do/have single celled organism change to complex celled organisms?

Good question!

Imagine a pond filled with bacteria and viruses. There are competing species of bacteria who need to nutrients in the pond.

Now, if they clump together during their life cycles they have a better chance at getting the nutrients they need and fighting off competitors.

After several life-cycles, the bacteria have become dependent on each other. Over an even longer period of time, it becomes a necessity for survival.

That need = multicell organisms. More than one bacteria gets together and needs the other bacteria to survive.

This is a hypothesis, BTW. That potentially happened billions of years ago and would be tough to observe (for obvious reasons).

Cold_Zero wrote:I often suspected that the reason why Evolutionists claim the earth is so old is because they need this extended timeline to make their theory statistically plausible.

No, no, noooo.

Science determines these things through the Scientific Method!

1. Problem
2. Hypothesis
3. Test
4. Theory
5. Fact (rare)

In the case of Earth's age, this is done through radiometric age dating, geological findings, and findings from meteorites. I highly recommend a college-level geology course if you are interested in the age of the earth. Rocks are cool.

And we still operate under the premise that a Theory, Law or Fact is only held as such until the time it is modified, or disproven by another scientist?

Precisely. That is the awesomeness of science. It's about figuring out what is REALLY going on in reality.

Earth was flat. Earth was the center of the solar system. Earth was the center of the universe.

That is, until some very smart scientists proved otherwise!

So seriously, if someone can provide legitimate evidence that the earth is drastically younger or older than is widely accepted to be the case now, I would consider it. However, all evidence points to a very old (~4.6 billion years) Earth.

but you have to admit, it is a never ending endevor and most likely will never truly answer the question.

Yep! Welcome to human reality my good man!

We are made from stardust, though. That, you can be certain of.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rr-jyg0MyI[/youtube]

I can see the flash that you posted. Filters..

Stardust.. I prefer dust of the ground.

Oh bummer. More or less, it's Neil de Grasse Tyson explaining that the elements in our bodies are the exact same elements we find in the universe.

The most abundant elements in the universe?

1. hydrogen
2. helium
3. oxygen
4. carbon

Most abundant in your body?

1. hydrogen
2. helium
3. oxygen
4. carbon

EDIT: +1 for saying it better than I could. That is absolutely what bugs me.

IBCoupe wrote: if nothing else, I'd like to think I've given you reason to abandon those suspicions. There are legitimate concerns with the largely anti-science stance of the current crop of Republican legislators, exhibited most disturbingly by a rejection of one of the most basic and uncontroversial areas of scientific understanding: evolution.

So you can, yourself (well, with the help of some protective gear), witness with your own senses the FACT that certain radioactive isotopes decay at a certain rate. You can, yourself, also witness with your own senses the FACT that these same radioactive isotopes change once they have decayed, into another type of isotope or (in some cases) element.

If you have a rock, therefore, which contains a concentration of a certain element, with a portion of that element in the form of the pre-decayed isotope and portions of it in the post-decayed form, you can, using very simple math, extrapolate how long it's taken for the isotope mass found in that rock to convert from one state to the other.

Therefore, the rock must be at least as old as the decay-time you just calculated. If science was like our legal system, the prosecution would rest and the jury would not be able to find "reasonable doubt". However, science has, to its own detriment, set itself to a more exacting standard than they probably should.

So when you hear "theory" applied to evolution or the age of the rock/planet/universe/dinosaur bone, don't confuse a self-imposed standard with any REAL uncertainty on the part of the scientific community. But even if there is a 0.00000000000000000000000000001% chance that there are mitigating factors which might even alter one of the base calculations that are part of the assertion, they still opt to call it a "theory". Scientists LOVE to (1) be proven wrong and (2) prove other scientists wrong. Because at the end of the day, being right discovers nothing, but being wrong discovers at least one thing.

Here's my analogy on the evolution theory:

Suppose the question were how many fish are there in all the world's oceans? The scientific route would be to find a way to estimate roughly how many fish there are in certain areas, and use that to form a rough idea of how many there might be by extrapolating that data out. Clearly, there is no way to be 100% certain, so it would simply be an estimate or a theory about the solution. The theological response would be something like "10 million". While it is certainly possible that there are 10 million fish out there, I wouldn't call this guess scientific. And, personally, I would place my money on whatever estimate science came up with.

We may not ever have the exact answer. But a guess supported by some facts is better than a random answer in my opinion.

Cold_Zero wrote:I often suspected that the reason why Evolutionists claim the earth is so old is because they need this extended timeline to make their theory statistically plausible.

That's how religious belief works. That's not how science works.

Cold_Zero wrote:And I am sorry Isaac, I don’t think that Religion specifically Christianity is anti scientific. If it where we would not have the rich tradition of Christian scientists from history and we sure as s*** wouldn’t have currently Christians in scientific fields, like say a microbiologist that works for Eli Lilly that I know. I think that label is just a lame attempt by people who put their trust in Science to make Christians look like they are backwards.

I didn't say religion is anti-science. I said Republicans are. The notion that Republicans have the only claim to religion in American politics is another big lie.

Thats all well and good Matt, and I might take up issue with some of that in PM with you later, if I feel like it. But as I said, my intention was not to start a Evo war. We've been down that road before here, my point was that you seem to have a rather intolerant viewpoint on the subject. Everyone believes their belief is ABSOLUTE in correctness, and thats fine. Give yourself a bonus if you like because you have "science" behind you. I respect evolution theory, and those who subscribe to it. I take issue with it, and thats my right. You and IB can assume ignorance on my part all you like, just keep it to yourself, and dont put your butt on your shoulders and think you've cornered the market on intelligence.

I agree with the sentiment that unproven beliefs or religious tennants should stay out of governance. Im not advocating any different. Im simply stating that someone who holds a differing viewpoint on something that is still THEORETICAL does not mean they have any different rationalization skills.

As I said originally, get off your high horse.

stebo0728 wrote:Everyone believes their belief is ABSOLUTE in correctness, and thats fine. Give yourself a bonus if you like because you have "science" behind you.

Dude, no. I rarely believe in absolutes. I previously stated in this thread that if there is more evidence and logic behind a competing theory, I will seriously consider its validity.

stebo0728 wrote:You and IB can assume ignorance on my part all you like, just keep it to yourself, and dont put your butt on your shoulders and think you've cornered the market on intelligence.

My assertions were based on what you've written.

I don't think you are unintelligent at all. I think you haven't thoroughly and objectively researched the subject.

stebo0728 wrote:Im simply stating that someone who holds a differing viewpoint on something that is still THEORETICAL does not mean they have any different rationalization skills.

I disagree in this particular case. Please see my four assumptions posted previously on those who deny evolution.

stebo0728 wrote:As I said originally, get off your high horse.

I back up every single one of my assertions with fact and logic, and will 100% recant when proven to be incorrect. I am just waiting for someone to offer some kind of argument that makes evolution seem implausible.

The "macroevolutionary gaps" argument just doesn't hold a feather's worth of weight. I'm sorry.

I believe in evolution AND Creation. There's absolutely no reason they have to be mutually exclusive.

TOP THAT, bishez.

(... no time to go into it tonight, but it actually makes a lot of sense...)

AZhitman wrote:I believe in evolution AND Creation. There's absolutely no reason they have to be mutually exclusive.

TOP THAT, bishez.

(... no time to go into it tonight, but it actually makes a lot of sense...)

That's pretty common from what I've seen. There's a theological theory that appeals to me that sounds like it might be what you're aiming for. An absent God would have created the Universe, waved, and disappeared, establishing the laws of physics and letting the universe grow as it will.

This is an especially appealing theory for those who have trouble recinciling an omnibenevolent, omnipresent, and omnipotent God with natural disasters and instances of great human evil.

My primary confusion with the whole "God: Precursor Catalyst" argument is this:

If it's perfectly plausible that god exists without having been created, then why is it implausible that the universe exists without having been created?

...just as plausible as something as complex as the human brain (or eye, or hand) being the result of simple happenstance.

Spend four semesters in Honors A&P and gain a newfound appreciation for how incredibly amazing we've been made (whether by an intelligent Creator or adaptations over time).

I wouldn't fault anyone for sitting back and simply being awed at the wonder of it all, without trying to reconcile what they see with our puny and pathetic knowledge of both science and our origins.

AZhitman wrote: I wouldn't fault anyone for sitting back and simply being awed at the wonder of it all, without trying to reconcile what they see with our puny and pathetic knowledge of both science and our origins.

As a writer and a poet, "awe and wonder" ranks just above "curiosity" on my heirarchy of needs. "Desire to know the future" follows immediately thereafter. So for me, I love what we are, need to know how we got here, and want to know where we're going. For me, I'd rather be the result of millions of years of overcoming biological adversity than a flawed result of one day's work.

If "knowing the future" is ranking up there, you're gonna be real disappointed when you look at your 90 years (God willing - wait, oops) against the backdrop of eleventy-kajillion years of history.

Regardless, I don't disagree. I just know my limitations, and sometimes awe and wonder is just an easy (and relaxing) way out. I'm betting in another 10-15 years, you'll be there, because I was where you are when I was in college.

Not sure where you're going with the "10-15 years" or "when I was in college" comments. Can you elaborate? Does the fact that I graduated from college in 1995 clarify anything?

And don't confuse "desire to know the future" with "knowing the future". Knowing the future is impossible, as the future only exists conceptually. But the more we look at the past as a model, the more accurate predictions of the future can become. Sure, past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it does get us closer, which is enough to satisfy some of my curiosity.

My bad - I forgot, we're roughly the same age... I'm used to twenty-somethings in here.

Something I take solace in as well is the fact that "clock" and "calendar" time is an artificial construct, designed by man to mark the passage of time. If we step back and consider that eleventy-kajillion years to our known universe is a mere nanosecond in "time", OR, alternatively, that our 90 years on Earth is a relative eternity, then it helps put things in perspective for me.

LOL

No worries. The older I get, the younger I feel. Next stop, liquid diet and diapers.

AZhitman wrote:I believe in evolution AND Creation. There's absolutely no reason they have to be mutually exclusive.

TOP THAT, bishez.

(... no time to go into it tonight, but it actually makes a lot of sense...)

You're totally right. They do not have to be mutually exclusive.

This is a pretty sensible compromise. I do see several gaping holes that cannot be answered through science (real life test and observation) because of the creation part, though.

My question would be, at what point did the creation stop and the evolution begin, and where is the scientific evidence? It would have to be at the very first spark of life when single-celled organisms came to be. After that, we have a fossil record to back up evolution's role in shaping the Earth biosphere.

All plants and animals fit into an astonishingly clear picture known as the six-kingdom system.

All Life->Kingdom->Phylum->Class->Order->Family->Genus->Species->(onward into sub-classifications)

Creation... well... doesn't have any classification for anything. :/ It also doesn't even attempt to describe how life really works as one unit.

Creation seems rather implausible to me because of the natural order of the universe and the ever confusing "chicken and egg" argument. Who or what created the creator?

Of all the ridiculously crazy phenomena in the known universe, life fits in pretty well when you think about it.

I'll even go one step further. Life is most likely not unique to our planet. There are an almost incalculable number of planetary objects surrounding an almost incalculable number of stars, most of which contain the same building blocks for life that we have here in our solar system. Chances are, there is life all over the place.

EDIT: Also, very important to re-iterate. Evolution is CONSTANTLY being revised and updated when new evidence is found. Creation sticks to one story regardless of evidence.

None of you live your lives in a fashion that disregards new evidence. You take new evidence and use it. For example:

Evidence: Your car's gas light is turned on.

1. Scientific approach - Get more gas.
2. Unscientific approach - Disregard the gas light. I believe this car can go another 100 miles.

AZhitman wrote:...just as plausible as something as complex as the human brain (or eye, or hand) being the result of simple happenstance.

Everything in your life is happenstance.

Eye's evolved as a light-sensing organ. Its complexity developed over millions and millions of years. Plenty of evidence for that.

The brain is also an evolved organ. Plenty of evidence for that as well.

You, as a human, have a triune brain. One part reptile, one part early mammal, one part newage mammal. I'm sure you know that though.