Search forums

Forums

Export thread

PROOF OF DARWIN'S THEORY DISCOVERED!!!!

Jul 29, 2009#1

Zappit

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090729/sc ... oceansfish

No, not THAT Darwin, but rather, his grandson, who proposed that marine life affected the circulation of ocean/sea waters, a theory initially dismissed as science fiction.

PARIS (AFP) – Creatures large and small may play an unsuspectedly important role in the stirring of ocean waters, according to a study released Wednesday.

So-called ocean mixing entails the transfer of cold and warm waters between the equator and poles, as well as between the icy, nutrient-rich depths and the sun-soaked top layer.

It plays a crucial part in marine biodiversity and, scientists now suspect, in maintaining Earth's climate.

The notion that fish and other sea swimmers might somehow contribute significantly to currents as they moved forward was first proposed in the mid-1950s by Charles Darwin, grandson of the the legendary evolutionary biologist of the same name.

But this was dismissed by modern scientists as a fishy story.

In 1960s, experiments compared the wake turbulence created by sea creatures with overall ocean turbulence. They showed that the whirls kicked up by microscopic plankton or even fish quickly dissipated in dense, viscous water.

On this evidence, sea creatures seemed to contribute nothing to ocean mixing. The clear conclusion was that the only drivers of note were shifting winds and tides, tied to the gravitational tug-of-war within our Solar System.

But the new study, published in the British science journal Nature, goes a long way toward rehabilitating the 20th century Darwin, and uses the quiet pulse of the jellyfish to prove the case.

Authors Kakani Katija and Joan Dabiri of the California Institute of Technology devised a laser-based system for measuring the movement of liquid.

They donned scuba gear and then released dye in the path of swarm of jellyfish in a saltwater lake on the Pacific island of Palau.

The video images they captured showed a remarkable amount of cold water followed the jellyfish as they moved vertically, from deeper chillier waters toward the warmer layers of the surface.

Katija and Dabiri say the 1960s investigators had simply been looking in the wrong place.

They had been on the alert for waves or eddies -- signs that the sea was being stirred up in the creatures' wake -- rather than vertical displacement of water.

What determines the amount of water that is mixed is the size and shape of the animal, its population and migratory patterns.

Churning of the seas is a factor in the carbon cycle.

At the surface, plankton gobble up carbon dioxide (CO2) through photosynthesis. When they die, their carbon-rich remains may fall gently to the ocean floor, effectively storing the CO2 for millennia -- or, alternatively, may be brought back to upper layers by sea currents.

William Dewar of Florida State University in a commentary, also published in Nature, said the new paper challenged conventional thinking.

\"Should the overall idea of significant biogenic mixing survive detailed scrutiny, climate science will have experienced a paradigm shift,\" he said.

Jul 29, 2009#2

JCM

Jul 29, 2009#3

MindDetective

You can't prove theories. other than that, nifty.

Jul 29, 2009#4

North_Ranger

Sooooo... I can't go and blow up that pile of horseshit known as the Creation Museum?

Jul 29, 2009#5

Calleja

MindDetective said:
You can't prove theories. other than that, nifty.

Well, to be fair he said PROOF was found, not that it was PROVEN

Jul 29, 2009#6

MindDetective

Calleja said:
MindDetective said:

You can't prove theories. other than that, nifty.

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair he said PROOF was found, not that it was PROVEN

If we're going to talk semantics, "proof of a theory" implies proof that the theory exists. Support for a theory, on the other hand...

Jul 29, 2009#7

Chazwozel

JCM said:

Origin of the Species 2 = Descent of Man, which sucked balls. But the picture is :rofl:

Jul 29, 2009#8

Calleja

MindDetective said:
Calleja said:

MindDetective said:

You can't prove theories. other than that, nifty.

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair he said PROOF was found, not that it was PROVEN

Click to expand...

If we're going to talk semantics, "proof of a theory" implies proof that the theory exists. Support for a theory, on the other hand...

Fair enough... we can imply he meant proof to SUPPORT the theory, right?

It's still not saying the theory was PROVED, which would be impossible or it stops being a theory.

Jul 29, 2009#9

Aisaku

Oh noes...what if all marine life allies against humanity?!

aranoid:

Jul 29, 2009#10

MindDetective

Calleja said:
MindDetective said:

Calleja said:

MindDetective said:

You can't prove theories. other than that, nifty.

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair he said PROOF was found, not that it was PROVEN

Click to expand...

If we're going to talk semantics, "proof of a theory" implies proof that the theory exists. Support for a theory, on the other hand...

Click to expand...

Fair enough... we can imply he meant proof to SUPPORT the theory, right?

It's still not saying the theory was PROVED, which would be impossible or it stops being a theory.

Well, that's clearly what he meant. Just had scratch that nagging itch, y'know?

Jul 29, 2009#11

JCM

Jul 29, 2009#12

Calleja

Does the ten pound note really have Darwin? To this day!?

I had no idea. Major Win, UK, major win.

Jul 29, 2009#13

Rob King

Calleja said:
MindDetective said:

Calleja said:

MindDetective said:

You can't prove theories. other than that, nifty.

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair he said PROOF was found, not that it was PROVEN

Click to expand...

If we're going to talk semantics, "proof of a theory" implies proof that the theory exists. Support for a theory, on the other hand...

Click to expand...

Fair enough... we can imply he meant proof to SUPPORT the theory, right?

It's still not saying the theory was PROVED, which would be impossible or it stops being a theory.

In the scientific sense, I'm not sure you're right. If a theory is simply a statement/idea designed to explain or make sense of empirical observations, then it doesn't cease to be a theory because of overwhelming evidence.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences: "A Sientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." (snipped from Wikipedia)

Which is why I want to punch creationists in the face when they say "If you're so sure about evolution, why do you still call it the "Theory of Evolution?" 'Theory' in the scientific sense has little to do with 'Theory' in the phrase 'my theory is ... '

Actually, this distinction has begun to get me so frustrated, I've vowed to stop using 'theory' in the more colloquial sense and use the word that actually has the definition I'm looking for: 'hypothesis.'

Jul 30, 2009#14

@Li3n

Rob King said:
Which is why I want to punch creationists in the face when they say "If you're so sure about evolution, why do you still call it the "Theory of Evolution?" 'Theory' in the scientific sense has little to do with 'Theory' in the phrase 'my theory is ... '

Actually they're the same... but a scientific one is more testable then let's say a philosophical one... and a theory by a layman tend to be more lax in it's standards.

Also, it's not like there aren't mutually exclusive theories in the hard sciences either. Of course evolution has not valid scientific rivals, even if there is a God that created anything, as omnipotence laughs in the face of logic...

Jul 30, 2009#15

Rob King

@Li3n said:
Actually they're the same... but a scientific one is more testable then let's say a philosophical one... and a theory by a layman tend to be more lax in it's standards.

Also, it's not like there aren't mutually exclusive theories in the hard sciences either. Of course evolution has not valid scientific rivals, even if there is a God that created anything, as omnipotence laughs in the face of logic...

Right. I suppose I spoke quicker than I thought there. But I still want to punch creationists in the face.

Jul 30, 2009#16

Chazwozel

@Li3n said:
[quote="Rob King":39jq134k]
Which is why I want to punch creationists in the face when they say "If you're so sure about evolution, why do you still call it the "Theory of Evolution?" 'Theory' in the scientific sense has little to do with 'Theory' in the phrase 'my theory is ... '

Actually they're the same... but a scientific one is more testable then let's say a philosophical one... and a theory by a layman tend to be more lax in it's standards.

Also, it's not like there aren't mutually exclusive theories in the hard sciences either. Of course evolution has not valid scientific rivals, even if there is a God that created anything, as omnipotence laughs in the face of logic...[/quote:39jq134k]

NO!

A theory is an explanation of a phenomena using the summary of results and conclusions from the data lumped together of many hypotheses tested using logic and the scientific method.

The layman's definition of theory is inquiry about a phenomenon and a conclusion based on his gut reaction or basic logic without any gathering of data. "My theory is that the white dots in the night sky are holes poked into the fabric of space with a light shining from behind."

One is an amalgamation of data collected and conclusions reached based on that data and logic, the other is a hunch. They are NOT the same, at all! If anything I would say a hypothesis is the closest thing in science to the layman's definition of theory. A hypothesis is a question you can test based on observations you make. It's an educated hunch or thought you have about a natural phenomena that you can test to see if you're hunch is correct based on logical data.

Jul 30, 2009#17

MindDetective

Chazwozel said:
@Li3n said:

[quote="Rob King":jc7lyp56]
Which is why I want to punch creationists in the face when they say "If you're so sure about evolution, why do you still call it the "Theory of Evolution?" 'Theory' in the scientific sense has little to do with 'Theory' in the phrase 'my theory is ... '

Click to expand...

Actually they're the same... but a scientific one is more testable then let's say a philosophical one... and a theory by a layman tend to be more lax in it's standards.

Also, it's not like there aren't mutually exclusive theories in the hard sciences either. Of course evolution has not valid scientific rivals, even if there is a God that created anything, as omnipotence laughs in the face of logic...

NO!

A theory is an explanation of a phenomena using the summary of results and conclusions from the data lumped together of many hypotheses tested using logic and the scientific method.

The layman's definition of theory is inquiry about a phenomenon and a conclusion based on his gut reaction or basic logic without any gathering of data. "My theory is that the white dots in the night sky are holes poked into the fabric of space with a light shining from behind."

One is an amalgamation of data collected and conclusions reached based on that data and logic, the other is a hunch. They are NOT the same, at all! If anything I would say a hypothesis is the closest thing in science to the layman's definition of theory. A hypothesis is a question you can test based on observations you make. It's an educated hunch or thought you have about a natural phenomena that you can test to see if you're hunch is correct based on logical data.[/quote:jc7lyp56]

100% fact right here

Jul 30, 2009#18

JCM

@Li3n said:
[quote="Rob King":ql72booh]
Which is why I want to punch creationists in the face when they say "If you're so sure about evolution, why do you still call it the "Theory of Evolution?" 'Theory' in the scientific sense has little to do with 'Theory' in the phrase 'my theory is ... '

Actually they're the same... but a scientific one is more testable then let's say a philosophical one... and a theory by a layman tend to be more lax in it's standards. [/quote:ql72booh]

Jul 30, 2009#19

Bowielee

My chem teacher in high school spent an entire day on the definition of theory and hypothesis. It's a pretty important distinction.

Jul 30, 2009#20

Wahad

Aisaku said:
Oh noes...what if all marine life allies against humanity?! aranoid:

So long, so long and thanks for all the fish?

Jul 30, 2009#21

Eriol

Wahad said:
Aisaku said:

Oh noes...what if all marine life allies against humanity?! aranoid:

Click to expand...

So long, so long and thanks for all the fish?

I was thinking more along the lines of "The Simpsons" and the Dolphins taking back the land.

Jul 30, 2009#22

Rob King

Rob King said:
[quote="@Li3n":1h2fjies] Actually they're the same... but a scientific one is more testable then let's say a philosophical one... and a theory by a layman tend to be more lax in it's standards.

Also, it's not like there aren't mutually exclusive theories in the hard sciences either. Of course evolution has not valid scientific rivals, even if there is a God that created anything, as omnipotence laughs in the face of logic...

Right. I suppose I spoke quicker than I thought there. But I still want to punch creationists in the face.[/quote:1h2fjies]

And now I feel even more like an idiot for going back on my point, when it seems I was right in the first place. :ninja:

Jul 30, 2009#23

JCM

Rob King said:
[quote="Rob King":1379c8r0][quote="@Li3n":1379c8r0] Actually they're the same... but a scientific one is more testable then let's say a philosophical one... and a theory by a layman tend to be more lax in it's standards.

Also, it's not like there aren't mutually exclusive theories in the hard sciences either. Of course evolution has not valid scientific rivals, even if there is a God that created anything, as omnipotence laughs in the face of logic...

Right. I suppose I spoke quicker than I thought there. But I still want to punch creationists in the face.[/quote:1379c8r0]

And now I feel even more like an idiot for going back on my point, when it seems I was right in the first place. :ninja:

[/quote:1379c8r0]Feel free to do so, as they deserve that punch.

Confusing evolution, a scientific theory, with creatonism, a belief, is idiotic. Heck, belief is even lower in the whole intelligence scale, when we compare them.

BELIEF is a belief in things unseen, unknown, untested, unknowable, and unprovable. The bible and Koran are two such books of faith, and their strength relies on their untestability.
If you truly believe, then all the evidence you need is contained within the book/belief system. Anything contradicting the book/belief system is false and lies.

LAYMAN´s THEORY is an explanation one makes up according to his knowledge, and how it explains something. For example, an aborigine will theorize that stars are people´s souls, an indian, that its the sunlight shining thorugh a dark blanket, and so on.
It is just your opinion, and most of the times untestable and untrue, but its a step up from belief, in the fact that it allows room for observation and sometimes, changing of the theory to allow new evidence.

SCIENTIFIC THEORY is a result of a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. It can be tested, repeated, and proven.
Its' theories come from proven and tested facts which are used to form a conclusion, in form of experiments which may be replicated by anyone, and which may be disproven with the introduction of new evidence.

Mind you, Im no scientist, so should the more knowledgable folks in this field like Chaz and Jake want to correct anything, go ahead. Anyway, an easy way to get out of such stupidity is by taking their own "teach the controversy and applying it to other beliefs and layman´s theories, and you´d get the following-

Jul 30, 2009#24

Rob King

I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of belief, but I agree with the gist of what you're saying.

Also, are those "Teach the Controversy" pictures shirt designs? Because if not, they would look awesome, and I would wear them.

Jul 30, 2009#25

Chazwozel

Rob King said:
I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of belief, but I agree with the gist of what you're saying.

Also, are those "Teach the Controversy" pictures shirt designs? Because if not, they would look awesome, and I would wear them.

Belief is fine and dandy. I'm an active Christian and have my own beliefs and faith, however, I would not, nor will I ever impose those beliefs or faith in my science classroom! It's just not science.

You can believe in creationism all you want, but it's not science. It just isn't. Evolution isn't out there to make itself a religion based on faith. There is no faith in science, only logic and fact. (well, not that kind of faith. I have to admit, I do my little voodoo dance to make sure my qPCR data is good. :rofl:

)

Jul 30, 2009#26

Enresshou

Rob King said:
I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of belief, but I agree with the gist of what you're saying.

Also, are those \"Teach the Controversy\" pictures shirt designs? Because if not, they would look awesome, and I would wear them.

I believe they are: http://controversy.wearscience.com/

I want to get one/several to wear around, both because it'd piss off the fundies I seem to see every time I go to SF (the ones with signs saying 'fags are gonna burn in hell', etc. Maybe I just have bad luck) and piss off the occasional militant atheist who thinks I'm being serious.

(Also, agreed with everybody above. Cell/molecular bio major, and few things will get me as pissed off as the, "But it's only a theory!" excuse. Interesting discussion in my history class this week after someone yelled that in response to Social Darwinism...)

Chazwozel said:
There is no faith in science, only logic and fact. (well, not that kind of faith. I have to admit, I do my little voodoo dance to make sure my qPCR data is good.

Totally agreed. My lab has two stuffed animals that you're supposed to high-five before each experiment, and I have a 'lucky beetle' keychain I bought in Japan.

Jul 30, 2009#27

Rob King

Enresshou said:
Chazwozel said:

There is no faith in science, only logic and fact. (well, not that kind of faith. I have to admit, I do my little voodoo dance to make sure my qPCR data is good.

Click to expand...

Totally agreed. My lab has two stuffed animals that you're supposed to high-five before each experiment, and I have a 'lucky beetle' keychain I bought in Japan.

My friend who is working with the Computer Science department of the local university 'prays' to Saint Isidore every time he compiles his code by saying "Make it work, Izzy."

I love joking superstitions like that.

Jul 30, 2009#28

JCM

Rob King said:
I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of belief, but I agree with the gist of what you're saying.

Also, are those "Teach the Controversy" pictures shirt designs? Because if not, they would look awesome, and I would wear them.

Believe me, its not a dismissal.

The whole test of faith is that to believe, you might have no proof, otherwise everyone would believe in God if he appeared, let himself be tested and recorded by science. :slywink:

Jul 30, 2009#29

Rob King

JCM said:
Rob King said:

I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of belief, but I agree with the gist of what you're saying.

Also, are those "Teach the Controversy" pictures shirt designs? Because if not, they would look awesome, and I would wear them.

Click to expand...

Believe me, its not a dismissal.

The whole test of faith is that to believe, you might have no proof, otherwise everyone would believe in God if he appeared, let himself be tested and recorded by science. :slywink:

Jul 30, 2009#30

@Li3n

Chazwozel said:
The layman's definition of theory is inquiry about a phenomenon and a conclusion based on his gut reaction or basic logic without any gathering of data. "My theory is that the white dots in the night sky are holes poked into the fabric of space with a light shining from behind."

One is an amalgamation of data collected and conclusions reached based on that data and logic, the other is a hunch.

Well sure if you're gonna go with a definition that's not in the dictionary you're right... but i'd put that as a moron's definition instead of a layman's... at least in theory ( :tongue: ) a theory should account for the majority of facts known (i'd say all but then we'd have to change it to Darwin's Hypothesis of Evolution)

Also, basic logic?! What would be advanced logic then?

Jul 30, 2009#31

Chibibar

Rob King said:
JCM said:

[quote="Rob King":31clhu3h]I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of belief, but I agree with the gist of what you're saying.

Also, are those "Teach the Controversy" pictures shirt designs? Because if not, they would look awesome, and I would wear them.

Click to expand...

Believe me, its not a dismissal.

The whole test of faith is that to believe, you might have no proof, otherwise everyone would believe in God if he appeared, let himself be tested and recorded by science. :slywink:

I think scientifically we are still learning a lot about the human existence, the human body, the world, and pretty much every else. The science method is all about logic. What you see, touch, feel (as in texture not personal feelings) taste, and hear. It is something that one person can test the hypothesis and come to the conclusion. The next person follow the same step and comes to the same conclusion.

I personally do believe in after life. I do believe in God. But to "test that theory" would be tough. My belief of God (personal feeling) vs your belief in God may differ. How do you test that? Also it is hard to test (cause we can't replicate it) creationism. God decides there should be a world, poof, there is one. Well... I personally can't create something out of thin air. I guess if we as human can create matter from thin air (theoretically impossible) i.e. from nothing. then Creationism might be a valid idea someday.

Jul 30, 2009#32

drawn_inward

Chazwozel said:
Rob King said:

I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of belief, but I agree with the gist of what you're saying.

Also, are those "Teach the Controversy" pictures shirt designs? Because if not, they would look awesome, and I would wear them.

Click to expand...

Belief is fine and dandy. I'm an active Christian and have my own beliefs and faith, however, I would not, nor will I ever impose those beliefs or faith in my science classroom! It's just not science.

You can believe in creationism all you want, but it's not science. It just isn't. Evolution isn't out there to make itself a religion based on faith. There is no faith in science, only logic and fact. (well, not that kind of faith. I have to admit, I do my little voodoo dance to make sure my qPCR data is good. )

100% THIS. I hate when people ask if I believe in Evolution. My answer is always, "Do you believe in gravity?"

BTW, you and I are probably the only 2 on this board that know what qPCR is, and how to do it. :batman:

Jul 30, 2009#33

Chazwozel

drawn_inward said:
Chazwozel said:

[quote="Rob King":1jplpek7]I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of belief, but I agree with the gist of what you're saying.

Also, are those "Teach the Controversy" pictures shirt designs? Because if not, they would look awesome, and I would wear them.

Click to expand...

Belief is fine and dandy. I'm an active Christian and have my own beliefs and faith, however, I would not, nor will I ever impose those beliefs or faith in my science classroom! It's just not science.

You can believe in creationism all you want, but it's not science. It just isn't. Evolution isn't out there to make itself a religion based on faith. There is no faith in science, only logic and fact. (well, not that kind of faith. I have to admit, I do my little voodoo dance to make sure my qPCR data is good. )

Jul 31, 2009#34

tegid

Rob King said:
JCM said:

[quote="Rob King":1lfvpymv]I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of belief, but I agree with the gist of what you're saying.

Also, are those "Teach the Controversy" pictures shirt designs? Because if not, they would look awesome, and I would wear them.

Click to expand...

Believe me, its not a dismissal.

The whole test of faith is that to believe, you might have no proof, otherwise everyone would believe in God if he appeared, let himself be tested and recorded by science. :slywink:

As one with borderline Deist convictions, I would point to our existence at all as the proof. I'm not ignorant enough to pretend that it will convince anybody, but to me it seems obvious. Disagreeing with it, to me, is like sitting in somebody's kitchen and asking "Where is the architect? If he doesn't show himself, there was no architect."

Besides, don't tell me that if God decided for some reason to reveal himself we would have mass conversions. Maybe among the simplest trend-following humans, but I can just imagine someone recording it and posting it to YouTube, where it would be met with a chorus of 'Faaakeee's and 'Looks photoshopped's.[/quote:1lfvpymv]

But what if they knew a way in which the house could have been built without an architect? (Nevermind...)

Also, God revealing himself is something more than him appearing in the highway and making a car fly. It's REVEALING. I mean, you can't not believe then, by definition, unless you are an extreme skeptic (I mean, it would be like not believing in you computer monitor...)

Jul 31, 2009#35

Mr_Chaz

Rob King said:
JCM said:

[quote="Rob King":l17qo5rc]I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of belief, but I agree with the gist of what you're saying.

Also, are those "Teach the Controversy" pictures shirt designs? Because if not, they would look awesome, and I would wear them.

Click to expand...

Believe me, its not a dismissal.

The whole test of faith is that to believe, you might have no proof, otherwise everyone would believe in God if he appeared, let himself be tested and recorded by science. :slywink:

As one with borderline Deist convictions, I would point to our existence at all as the proof. I'm not ignorant enough to pretend that it will convince anybody, but to me it seems obvious. Disagreeing with it, to me, is like sitting in somebody's kitchen and asking "Where is the architect? If he doesn't show himself, there was no architect."

Besides, don't tell me that if God decided for some reason to reveal himself we would have mass conversions. Maybe among the simplest trend-following humans, but I can just imagine someone recording it and posting it to YouTube, where it would be met with a chorus of 'Faaakeee's and 'Looks photoshopped's.[/quote:l17qo5rc]

I know because of some of the pixels and because I've seen a lot of people turn water to wine in my time.

Jul 31, 2009#36

Rob King

tegid said:
But what if they knew a way in which the house could have been built without an architect? (Nevermind...)

Also, God revealing himself is something more than him appearing in the highway and making a car fly. It's REVEALING. I mean, you can't not believe then, by definition, unless you are an extreme skeptic (I mean, it would be like not believing in you computer monitor...)

Well, from a Christian perspective, he's already revealed himself as much as he's going to: through Jesus. An Atheist or Agnostic can argue that that's not fair, and that doesn't count because they don't believe that Jesus was anything special, and besides, that was two thousand years ago! But again - from where a Christian stands, that just proves my point: revelation doesn't necessarily mean belief.

Anyhow. I'm not trying to bring about a revival here. Just trying to explain the Christian perspective. As far as the Christians are concerned it should be obvious that God exists. But then he went one better, and revealed himself through Jesus. Why then, and why he won't do it again is beyond me, but if you believe that Jesus came, and that the gospel account is at least reasonably accurate, it's obvious that revealing himself is not enough to make everyone believe.

Jul 31, 2009#37

tegid

But... you are telling me that 'if you believe, it's obvious that he has revealed himself already'. I get your perspective, but the argument only holds from your perspective.

Look, I was a catholic up until some years ago, and I believe(d) what JCM said: it's not believing if it's something you know. Therefore, god can't reveal himself to us, at least in an obvious ways. For this reason I mostly don't (didn't) believe in miracles, except maybe in cases when the people affected were already 'true' believers (not even then... it doesn't seem reasonable to me that god would have to do anything special to have things go 'his way')

Besides all of this, I don't think your argument holds. For starters, you need to believe in the accuracy of the gospels which is already hardly a good point. Also, how did he reveal himself through Jesus? To todays people (i.e. me) he didn't. Even to the people who lived all that, unless they saw the actual miracles and whatnot, he didn't. To a non believer, what's the difference between Jesus coming and saying 'I'm God's Son', and some crazy guy doing the same thing? unless he has something to show, he's not SHOWING god's existence. He leaves space for belief (unless you saw miracles or whatev, in which case I think you are still wrong since more or less everyone who did see miracles believed Jesus, according to the bible -lucky those who believe without seeing...).

To me, the Bible, Jesus, whatever, is (and don't be offended, it's for the sake of the argument) like reading about elephants. They tell me they exist, they are this or that way. Allright, you can believe it or not. But if suddenly I found an elephant in my living room, I would have to believe. That's what revelation is to me. The realization that God exists, the knowledge appearing in your head, being forced in, whatever, without a need for belief.

Jul 31, 2009#38

A

AngelofBitterness

Rob King said:
As one with borderline Deist convictions, I would point to our existence at all as the proof. I'm not ignorant enough to pretend that it will convince anybody, but to me it seems obvious. Disagreeing with it, to me, is like sitting in somebody's kitchen and asking "Where is the architect? If he doesn't show himself, there was no architect."

Your analogy is flawed, though: we see houses being built and kitchens being created. We are not seeing God create new beings or new planets. Everything was already here so it's a bad analogy. With creationism, you're taking a while uneducated guess about what happened before our time. We weren't there, we didn't see, and all we can do is study the traces left behind and those point towards all the theories that disprove creationism.

The main problem with creationism, is that people want to put it at the same level of science. Heck, when a bishop was asked if he believed in the evolution theory, he said "oh, not everything in the Bible is to be taken literately - it's a book of symbolism." Basically, he believed in the theory of evolution because it doesn't say that God didn't create the universe and let life evolve etc. Creationism, however, is so ignorant to say "God created life out of thin air" when it's obvious this did not happen (unless you're a conspiracy nut).

Jul 31, 2009#39

JCM

Rob King said:
tegid said:

But what if they knew a way in which the house could have been built without an architect? (Nevermind...)

Also, God revealing himself is something more than him appearing in the highway and making a car fly. It's REVEALING. I mean, you can't not believe then, by definition, unless you are an extreme skeptic (I mean, it would be like not believing in you computer monitor...)

Click to expand...

Well, from a Christian perspective, he's already revealed himself as much as he's going to: through Jesus.

Not much of revealing from a factual point, because one could say-

Well, from a Muslim perspective, he's already revealed himself as much as he's going to: through Muhammed.

Well, from an Indian perspective, he's already revealed himself as much as he's going to: through the Kamas.

What Im saying is that belief cant be proven. People exist? Could be God. Could be Ganesh. Could be the rainbow snake. Easch one has different beliefs that require one to believe.

Heck, even thories that dont have god in it are as valid as beliefs as the Christian one.

it's not believing if it's something you know. Therefore, god can't reveal himself to us, at least in an obvious ways. For this reason I mostly don't (didn't) believe in miracles, except maybe in cases when the people affected were already 'true' believers (not even then... it doesn't seem reasonable to me that god would have to do anything special to have things go 'his way')

Bingo.

Besides all of this, I don't think your argument holds. For starters, you need to believe in the accuracy of the gospels which is already hardly a good point. Also, how did he reveal himself through Jesus? To todays people (i.e. me) he didn't. Even to the people who lived all that, unless they saw the actual miracles and whatnot, he didn't. To a non believer, what's the difference between Jesus coming and saying 'I'm God's Son', and some crazy guy doing the same thing? unless he has something to show, he's not SHOWING god's existence. He leaves space for belief (unless you saw miracles or whatev, in which case I think you are still wrong since more or less everyone who did see miracles believed Jesus, according to the bible -lucky those who believe without seeing...).

To me, the Bible, Jesus, whatever, is (and don't be offended, it's for the sake of the argument) like reading about elephants. They tell me they exist, they are this or that way. Allright, you can believe it or not. But if suddenly I found an elephant in my living room, I would have to believe. That's what revelation is to me. The realization that God exists, the knowledge appearing in your head, being forced in, whatever, without a need for belief.

Exactly this.

If we go by fact and evidence, theres not much of a difference between "Buddha is the proof", "Jesus is the proof" or "that allah-shaped stone is the proof", so a belief in god is basically belief. Not a theory based on observable phenomena and expermiment.

Jul 31, 2009#40

Rob King

AngelofBitterness said:
Your analogy is flawed, though: we see houses being built and kitchens being created. We are not seeing God create new beings or new planets. Everything was already here so it's a bad analogy.

Are you serious? Aren't you making an argument for Evolution? Then how can you say we don't see new beings being created? And we don't turn our telescopes to the heavens to watch supernovae and other cosmic events? There are principles of creation at work in the universe that we can watch and examine.

I won't address the further points that get into the problems with creationism, because I am not a creationist.

tegid said:
But... you are telling me that 'if you believe, it's obvious that he has revealed himself already'. I get your perspective, but the argument only holds from your perspective.

JCM said:
Not much of revealing from a factual point, because one could say-

What Im saying is that belief cant be proven. People exist? Could be God. Could be Ganesh. Could be the rainbow snake. Easch one has different beliefs that require one to believe.

Maybe I wasn't being entirely clear. I wasn't trying or pretending to be objective. I wasn't proselytizing. I'm just saying that from the Christian side of the fence (or Muslim, or Bhuddist, or Taoist or ... hell, even Scientolegist) the issue of revelation isn't an issue.

With regards to God, Ganesh, Rainbow Snake, or whatever else ... again, this is where it comes down to my Deism. It could be any of those entities. It could be all of them. It could be none of them. I can't seriously sit here and pretend that my concept of God is the real slim shady. All I can say is that I have a concept of God, and much like Allah, or Krishna or the Greek Pantheon, it is a very likely imperfect approximation of whatever God is.

tegid said:
Besides all of this, I don't think your argument holds. For starters, you need to believe in the accuracy of the gospels which is already hardly a good point.

You're going to be disappointed by any ancient text. Nobody wrote history back then like we do today, with 100% unadulterated fact. Not the Gospel Writers, not Paul, not Herodotus. Everyone embellished, or put their own spin on things. Fox News keeps the tradition alive today, if you'd like a contemporary example :slywink:

So if things didn't happen exactly as the gospels say, I'm not bothered. In fact, we know that they didn't happen exactly as they said, because there are minor discrepancies between them. Stuff like ... in one gospel, Jesus healed two blind men, but in the other it was three. I don't have any specific examples, but we both know that they're there.

But even understanding that, the Gospels are remarkable for being written so soon after the event. Whether it was Matthew or Mark, or whoever's stationary it was written on will be questioned forever. But scholarship generally agrees that they were written in the first century C.E. That means that if there were any glaring errors, you can bet your balls that the Jews would have made note of it. And if they did, they've taken their precious time over the last two thousand years trying to find the post-it they wrote it down on. :eek:

rly:

tegid said:
Also, how did he reveal himself through Jesus? To todays people (i.e. me) he didn't. Even to the people who lived all that, unless they saw the actual miracles and whatnot, he didn't. To a non believer, what's the difference between Jesus coming and saying 'I'm God's Son', and some crazy guy doing the same thing? unless he has something to show, he's not SHOWING god's existence. He leaves space for belief (unless you saw miracles or whatev, in which case I think you are still wrong since more or less everyone who did see miracles believed Jesus, according to the bible -lucky those who believe without seeing...).

The rest of this stuff ... I can't really answer for anybody but myself. I don't need a personal revelation. The revelation that happened two thousand years ago sparked the creation of a major world religion that affected the worldview of all of Europe. Five hundred years ago, after a long struggle with entrenched classical thinking, Christian Humanism was the spark that ignited the Renaissance. At some point during the Renaissance, secularism became the next big thing.

I don't mind secularism. I believe that the future should be secular. And if in another five hundred years, nobody is a Christian anymore, I won't be too horrified. For me, Christianity served it's purpose when Francis Bacon and the boys decided that - as beings created in the image of a creator God - it was time to muck about with Science.

So I am a Christian today because of what Christianity has done so far. I hold hope that there is further good that it can do. But again, if Christianity has run it's course, and it's on it's way to the same end as worship of the Roman Pantheon, so be it.

After all, what does it matter if I have a line of scripture or a quote from Richard Dawkins as my epitaph in the grand scheme of things? :eyeroll:

Jul 31, 2009#41

Chibibar

Rob, the big difference of "believing it happen years ago" vs "seeing it happen or at least via evidence" is a pretty big difference.

We do see new life or at least discover. Scientists discover new species all the time (like our weird fish thread) and of course try to figure out how old it was, how long it has been there and how does it compare to other fossils, bones, marine wastes, etc etc etc (whatever all those scientist do) and test and retest to ensure their discovery is accurate.

I don't think anyone know the true origin of life, but scientist try to go by what evidence they discover so far (via fossils, minerals, and anything discover that exist at the time via carbon dating). Creationism doesn't even try to do that. It just go Year 0, man is created out of thin air (or clay or rib or whatever depending on your religion). It didn't come from the "primordial" soup or evolve from apes or from rainbow snake. Poof, there is man.

The stars are pretty interesting stuff. The stuff we see today, isn't really happening today. Light travel fast, but not THAT fast. A lot of things we see today happen hundred, thousands and some million years ago (as light finally travel so we can see it here on earth) it is pretty interesting stuff and try to make sense of it. I guess it boils down to physical evidence.

Evolution (the way I understand it) is from YEARS of study of different animals, their ancestors (via fossils) and make educational guess. I am still baffle by some creationist group thinking the earth is only 3000 years old. (some say) I still have no idea how they come up with that one (at least not scientifically)

Jul 31, 2009#42

ElJuski

A really smart dude once wrote to me, "We are here on this earth to fart around, don't let anyone tell you any different."

Jul 31, 2009#43

JCM

Rob King said:
The rest of this stuff ... I can't really answer for anybody but myself. I don't need a personal revelation. The revelation that happened two thousand years ago sparked the creation of a major world religion that affected the worldview of all of Europe.

Bingo.

This is a belief. Which everyone is entitled to, but as effective and sound in scientific discussion than someone saying the Great Chaz created the world when a drop of sweat fell from his brow.

Aug 6, 2009#44

@Li3n

drawn_inward said:
Chazwozel said:

[quote="Rob King":3nv51enk]I disagree with your wholesale dismissal of belief, but I agree with the gist of what you're saying.

Also, are those "Teach the Controversy" pictures shirt designs? Because if not, they would look awesome, and I would wear them.

Click to expand...

Belief is fine and dandy. I'm an active Christian and have my own beliefs and faith, however, I would not, nor will I ever impose those beliefs or faith in my science classroom! It's just not science.

You can believe in creationism all you want, but it's not science. It just isn't. Evolution isn't out there to make itself a religion based on faith. There is no faith in science, only logic and fact. (well, not that kind of faith. I have to admit, I do my little voodoo dance to make sure my qPCR data is good. )

100% THIS. I hate when people ask if I believe in Evolution. My answer is always, "Do you believe in gravity?"
[/quote:3nv51enk]

To be fair, evolution takes more then dropping a bowling ball on someone's foot as proof.

Aug 6, 2009#45

Rob King

JCM said:
Rob King said:

The rest of this stuff ... I can't really answer for anybody but myself. I don't need a personal revelation. The revelation that happened two thousand years ago sparked the creation of a major world religion that affected the worldview of all of Europe.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

This is a belief. Which everyone is entitled to, but as effective and sound in scientific discussion than someone saying the Great Chaz created the world when a drop of sweat fell from his brow.

Right. I wasn't arguing that belief was superior, or that everyone must have some sort of religious belief. This all started because I said I disagreed with what I interpreted as your dismissal of belief as somehow suspect or otherwise bankrupt of value. I think we're actually on the same page, generally.

And thanks, @Li3n, I had forgotten this thread when it fell off the first page

Aug 6, 2009#46

@Li3n said:
To be fair, evolution takes more then dropping a bowling ball on someone's foot as proof.

That's not gravity. It's Satan trying to drag us down to hell. You can't prove I'm wrong because it's what I believe!

:smug:

Aug 6, 2009#47

strawman

@Li3n said:
To be fair, evolution takes more then dropping a bowling ball on someone's foot as proof.

Not much though. It only takes a few generations of quick growing plants to prove evolution.

Keep in mind that the theory of evolution is merely that plants and animals adapt to their environment over time.

One can scientifically prove evolution while still remaining unconvinced that man descended through primates (ie, believing that there isn't yet enough evidence to consider as scientific 'fact' - merely a well supported theory, with no better scientific theory).

Which, of course, means that if one wants to be taken seriously in the scientific community they must accept that evolution explains man's origin better than any other scientific theory.

But it doesn't preclude believing in a different origin. It merely precludes using something else (or teaching something else) as a valid scientific theory.

-Adam

Aug 6, 2009#48

@Li3n

Other scientific theories?! I'm pretty sure evolution is the only one that qualifies as scientific in it's field... (also, there are many theory's about gravity, coz we still have no idea what causes it... )

That's not gravity. It's Satan trying to drag us down to hell.

Yeah, and that's called gravity... because it's grave news... (i prefer the whole it's actually inertia because out flat planet if moving at incredible speed... or the whole "sins are weighing us down" thing).

Aug 6, 2009#49

Rob King

@Li3n said:
(also, there are many theory's about gravity, coz we still have no idea what causes it... )

Damn my Google-fu! There's an xkcd about this if I remember correctly. They isolate a particle and ask it to explain gravity. It simply says "We get lonely."

Aug 6, 2009#50

Chibibar

Rob King said:
JCM said:

[quote="Rob King":3tt11w7i]The rest of this stuff ... I can't really answer for anybody but myself. I don't need a personal revelation. The revelation that happened two thousand years ago sparked the creation of a major world religion that affected the worldview of all of Europe.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

This is a belief. Which everyone is entitled to, but as effective and sound in scientific discussion than someone saying the Great Chaz created the world when a drop of sweat fell from his brow.

[/quote:3tt11w7i]

the belief system is bankrupt in value in the SCIENTIFIC community. No in the general community. I think that is the big difference people are trying to separate. The "belief community" i.e. Creationism is trying to wedge itself into the science community staying their system is the correct which is not even scientific and force their teaching in SCIENCE class. If you want to teach creationism in a religion class or philosophy, I don't think the scientific community would mind or care at all, but to teach in the science class........

might as well teach voodoo and witchcraft in science class too while we are at it and any other belief and magical thing. We can study unicorns and fairy in biology class.

Aug 6, 2009#51

Rob King

Chibibar said:
the belief system is bankrupt in value in the SCIENTIFIC community. No in the general community. I think that is the big difference people are trying to separate. The "belief community" i.e. Creationism is trying to wedge itself into the science community staying their system is the correct which is not even scientific and force their teaching in SCIENCE class. If you want to teach creationism in a religion class or philosophy, I don't think the scientific community would mind or care at all, but to teach in the science class........

might as well teach voodoo and witchcraft in science class too while we are at it and any other belief and magical thing. We can study unicorns and fairy in biology class.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about creationism. I could have missed something, but as far as I can remember, nobody has been talking about creationism other than to mention it in passing, and laugh at the silly fundamentalists.

Aug 6, 2009#52

Chibibar

Rob King said:
Chibibar said:

the belief system is bankrupt in value in the SCIENTIFIC community. No in the general community. I think that is the big difference people are trying to separate. The "belief community" i.e. Creationism is trying to wedge itself into the science community staying their system is the correct which is not even scientific and force their teaching in SCIENCE class. If you want to teach creationism in a religion class or philosophy, I don't think the scientific community would mind or care at all, but to teach in the science class........

might as well teach voodoo and witchcraft in science class too while we are at it and any other belief and magical thing. We can study unicorns and fairy in biology class.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you keep talking about creationism. I could have missed something, but as far as I can remember, nobody has been talking about creationism other than to mention it in passing, and laugh at the silly fundamentalists.

cause that is the original "derail" of the thread when talking about evolution vs belief (i.e. creationism)

Aug 6, 2009#53

Rob King

Chibibar said:
Rob King said:

I'm not sure why you keep talking about creationism. I could have missed something, but as far as I can remember, nobody has been talking about creationism other than to mention it in passing, and laugh at the silly fundamentalists.

Click to expand...

cause that is the original "derail" of the thread when talking about evolution vs belief (i.e. creationism)

Oh, I see. That's the fish JCM was chasing, I think. I just wanted to make sure that genuine religious belief wasn't being thrown out altogether when he was declaring his distaste for the creationist fools. I'm not interested in discussing it, since I'm not a creationist.

Aug 7, 2009#54

@Li3n

If you want to teach creationism in a religion class or philosophy

If we're talking about the version that seems most popular with the crazies in the US then NO, coz it's stupid... if you're just talking about the general idea, that's already taught in religion class, innit.

Aug 7, 2009#55

JCM

Rob King said:
JCM said:

[quote="Rob King":2ttm1cs4]The rest of this stuff ... I can't really answer for anybody but myself. I don't need a personal revelation. The revelation that happened two thousand years ago sparked the creation of a major world religion that affected the worldview of all of Europe.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

This is a belief. Which everyone is entitled to, but as effective and sound in scientific discussion than someone saying the Great Chaz created the world when a drop of sweat fell from his brow.

[/quote:2ttm1cs4]No problem.

I was just noting that "belief" and "scientific theory" were two very different concepts.

Aug 7, 2009#56

fade

Read this nice synopsis of the Edwards v. Aquillard case, which actually firmly established the definition of "science" through an amicus brief:

Science Defended, Science Defined: The Louisiana Creationism Case
http://www.jstor.org/stable/689806

-- Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:41 pm --

As far as the table analogy goes, the problem is that the analogy itself is skewed to a creationism perspective. What you're saying is like finding something like a rock formation that looks like a set table and assuming that it had to be set by someone. The problem with your analogy is that the set table implies a setter at its outset, but it looks like a set table to you because you're assuming it is a set table.

Forums