What do Aussies believe re: Evolution?

[derty]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

Evolution is only a theory. Just because you can't disprove it doesn't mean it is correct. Therefore surely evolution is just a belief system just as is religion.

Your understanding of what a theory is and what a theory is accepted to be in science are two different things. Evolution is much more than a belief system. Creation wishes it could only be a theory.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [4]

A scientific 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. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

I can't believe there is so much arguing going on in this thread. Okay, we could have all guessed some people would like to "push" their beliefs.

Evolution is only a theory.

You know I just love hearing this from people that think they know something about evolution. Tell me honestly Tom...have you spent as much time studying evolution as you have religion?

Just because you can't disprove it doesn't mean it is correct. Therefore surely evolution is just a belief system just as is religion.

Belief system? Oh most holy Darwin, we who were quite literally worms in our ancient bloodlines do most humbly beg you to interceed with the laws of chance so that I might win the lottery. I promise to tithe much wealth to your noble priests and phrophets and promise to recite Mendels Mechanisms most devoutly. Sorry Tommy couldn't resist responding frivolously.

I believe in God, not because God has stood in front of me, but because I believe it is correct based on what I read, feel, learn.

I dare say neither can be disproven and we can only prove it within ourselves.

PS. Sir Osisofliver, you seem to be making arguments without any real facts or knowledge of religion.

Bring it on Tommy, tell me about your Real Facts. Do they differ from everyday ordinary facts?


Sir O

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

Anyway as much fun as this is I should get going,

See you peeps on the morrow

 

[derty]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

Just to add to the previous information about what a scientific theory is to assist those who think that theories are mere hypothesis and speculation.

all from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

The fact that the Theory of Evolution still stands as a theory implies that there have been no observations made to date that disagree with the theory. A stark contrast to creation science that is continually backpedalling into the ever diminishing gaps.

Theory vs Law

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[9] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. This is not true, as scientific theory and scientific law have different definitions. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.

compare with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

 

[2020hindsight]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

The fact that the Theory of Evolution still stands as a theory implies that there have been no observations made to date that disagree with the theory. A stark contrast to creation science that is continually backpedalling into the ever diminishing gaps.

derty, Or this one mate - the Theory of Gravity
Poetry #1151

For those who thinks warming’s "just theory"
it’s "unproven"; it’s "making you weary",
for a bit of quick levity
test the Theory of Gravity
(just try jumping off cliffs without making a cavity)...
praps you’ll float down to earth feeling cheery.

(It's based on something I read on some website, so not 100% original).

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

Wow sounds so simple and so logical. Of course if emergence were an intrinsic characteristic of energy, matter, dark matter and all the other wonderful bits that make up the universe yet to be found, does this remove the need for independence?Let me continue to challenge this tradesim. How can we make that statement with any surety? How do we know that conditions for emergence didn't exist? Define "Conditions" Is it matter, sub atomic particles exotic energy states or some form of energy we are currently unaware of perhaps? It's such a simple thing to say that before there was anything there was nothing. So some "thing" must be outside of "everything" to cause everything to happen. And yet where did this "thing" (call it an entity if you must) emerge from itself? How can it be "uncaused"? How did the entity emerge with no prior conditions for it's emergence? It's infinity +1 and to make any absolute statements along the lines of "before everything there was nothing and whatever entity caused everything" is flawed.

I'll try and avoid jargon as much as possible...and as you consider this, bear in mind that Quentin Smith, one of the brightest atheistic philosophers on the planet, argues similarly.

If conditions for emergence existed, that means emergence reduces to dependence as emergent properties or entities depend on the prior conditions. Without such conditions, nothing can emerge. What those conditions are is irrelevant to the point at hand.

An uncaused entity did not emerge nor was it caused by something else. That's a basic fact of definition. If it emerged or had a cause than it would not be uncaused. Speaking of emergent uncaused entities is incoherent.

In the backwards chain of causation one can easily grasp how each link depends on the prior link. Link 0 Can be explained by link -1 as providing the conditions for its existence. And link -1 can be explained by link -2 and so on. As an example, evolution as a process is understood like this. But as each link is dependent on the prior link then we constantly need another explanation for each link we come across. This is the question at hand. Does the chain of links regress infinitely or is there an end to the chain? If we come to an end, how do we understand that first link?

It's actually impossible (though theoretically conceivable) for the chain to extend backwards infinitely for that would mean an infinite past chain would have been traversed by successive addition...ie.....-> Link x -> link y -> link z -> so on all the way to the present. But an infinite past set cannot be traversed by successive addition because it has no starting point and no matter how many links are crossed an infinite number still remain prior to reaching the present. There must be an initial link that is not infinitely behind us. This link cannot be emergent for that just begs the question. It if is emergent then we still haven't found the first link and need to keep going backwards. It cannot be dependent for the same reason. It must be independent. That means it does not depend on any prior conditions for its own existence. It just is and has always existed. It's difficult to conceive of how such a thing can be as our experience is limited to observing finite things. But lack of imagination should not prevent us from acknowledging its necessity.

 

[2020hindsight]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

What if a person has dual australian\american citizenship. If he\she votes on here, is same person voting with american thoughts or australian thoughts?

Gordon -
I'd be interested in your opinion - do you find a different attitude in AUS compared to USA?

Assuming you live in Aus these days - recent influences being mainly Aussie, etc ...
would you give the same answer if put under hypnosis and taken back to your US youth? (assumed)

 

[Dowdy]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

I'm curious to see if Aussies think the same way of Americans on the subject of evolution.
I found this chart of "What do Americans Believe"
three choices
a) God created the Earth in the last 10,000 years
b) God guided evolution of man over millions of years
c) Pure evolution - no God involved
no need for a lot of commentary (but up to you)
but would appreciate your time in voting, thanx.

Americans aren't a bright bunch

 

[2020hindsight]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

YES YOU DO ...that is a convergent series.

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 ..... etc leads to a whole number, 1 to be exact!

:topic
Also off topic spooly, but I seem to recall you also pointing out that
1+ 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 etc diverged. (i.e. didn't converge the way your example does.)

It's great that someone (Nicole Oresme?) proved that back in 1350
http://faculty.prairiestate.edu/skifowit/htdocs/harmapa.pdf

It has also amazed me that in 1670, a Dane (Ole Roemer - ? - sounds like a Spaniard - or maybe an Italian ) was able to measure speed of light correctly at 300,000 km/sec

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed_evidence.html

Well...during the 1670's, the Danish astronomer Ole Roemer was making extremely careful observations of Jupiter's moon Io. The black dot is Io's shadow. Io makes one complete orbit around Jupiter every 1.76 days; the time it takes to make each orbit is always the same, so Roemer expected that he could predict its motion quite precisely. To his astonishment, he discovered that the moon didn't always appear where it was supposed to be. At certain times of the year, it seemed to be slightly behind schedule; at other times, it was slightly ahead.

... etc etc Now, knowing how much Io's timing seemed to change and how much the distance from earth to Jupiter varied, Roemer was able to calculate a value for the speed of light. The number he came up with was about 186,000 miles per second, or 300,000 kilometers per second.

 

[mayk]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

:topic
Also off topic spooly, but I seem to recall you also pointing out that
1+ 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 etc diverged. (i.e. didn't converge the way your example does.)

It's great that someone (Nicole Oresme?) proved that back in 1350
http://faculty.prairiestate.edu/skifowit/htdocs/harmapa.pdf

It has also amazed me that in 1670, a Dane (Ole Roemer - ? - sounds like a Spaniard - or maybe an Italian ) was able to measure speed of light correctly at 300,000 km/sec

Hindsight, the sequence does converge to 2.

 

[2020hindsight]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

Hindsight, the sequence does converge to 2.

mayk
my money's on Nicole Oresme -
mind you he's been dead for 600 years

PS please don't confuse 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 etc (which converges)

with the harmonic series
1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 etc (which doesn't)

BTW proof of the former converging ( suitable for a postcard if you wish ...)

H5 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32
1 - H5 = 1/32

Hn = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 ... 1/2^n
1 - H5 = 1/2^n


Hence as n approaches infinity, the distance to "1" is 1/2^n , i.e. approaches zero .
QED

 

[2020hindsight]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

all this E= mc squared stuff
man has had to work out for hissuff
you'd expect there'd be clues
in the biblical news
but JC didn't know (strangely enough)

 

[noirua]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

noi, the topic's evolving you reckon

Welllllllllll 2020, I saw a poem somewhere that said the world is evolving as it should.

In my view, and as you know it must be right, we will stay on this planet for about 10 thousand years and then move steadily to the moon and other planets.
They will refer to the old planet and its gradual decline.

The most talked about concern will be certain spaceships going off course and sending people into outer space. Anyway, just a few will find new planets and set up new life there.

I believe the human occupation of outer space will be very slow but continue for at least 5 billion years.

As to god and religion. Views will be completely modernized and all the dated services in churches, synagogues, mosques - you name it - will be things of the ancient distant past.

 

[2020hindsight]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

noi -

I think this bloke says it - more poetically (and more accurately) ...
but you'd have to take the time to listen to it - all of it

"the Earth is where we make our stand !
the folly of human conceit-
the pale blue dot - the only home we've ever known"

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
embedded:-
Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot

 

[wayneL]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

Welllllllllll 2020, I saw a poem somewhere that said the world is evolving as it should.

In my view, and as you know it must be right, we will stay on this planet for about 10 thousand years and then move steadily to the moon and other planets.
They will refer to the old planet and its gradual decline.

The most talked about concern will be certain spaceships going off course and sending people into outer space. Anyway, just a few will find new planets and set up new life there.

I believe the human occupation of outer space will be very slow but continue for at least 5 billion years.

As to god and religion. Views will be completely modernized and all the dated services in churches, synagogues, mosques - you name it - will be things of the ancient distant past.

Life imitating art and for no other reason than you mentioning the distant future:

As a result of Hollywood, there already is a modern, workable religion... Jeddiism. As far as I can make out, many of the adherents are quite serious about it. To me it seems like a modernized Tao Te Ching, which is quite cool IMO, if one likes that sort of thing.

May the force be with you... or not, as the case may be.

 

[noirua]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

Life imitating art and for no other reason than you mentioning the distant future:

As a result of Hollywood, there already is a modern, workable religion... Jeddiism. As far as I can make out, many of the adherents are quite serious about it. To me it seems like a modernized Tao Te Ching, which is quite cool IMO, if one likes that sort of thing.

May the force be with you... or not, as the case may be.

I can't remember the exact figures now but the UK has enough Jeddiis voting to make it a classified religion. A neighbour put himself down as a Jeddi in the last UK survey because they shut the post office down in the village.
Australia and NZ have nearly as large a following.

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

I'll try and avoid jargon as much as possible...and as you consider this, bear in mind that Quentin Smith, one of the brightest atheistic philosophers on the planet, argues similarly.

If conditions for emergence existed, that means emergence reduces to dependence as emergent properties or entities depend on the prior conditions. Without such conditions, nothing can emerge. What those conditions are is irrelevant to the point at hand.

An uncaused entity did not emerge nor was it caused by something else. That's a basic fact of definition. If it emerged or had a cause than it would not be uncaused. Speaking of emergent uncaused entities is incoherent.

In the backwards chain of causation one can easily grasp how each link depends on the prior link. Link 0 Can be explained by link -1 as providing the conditions for its existence. And link -1 can be explained by link -2 and so on. As an example, evolution as a process is understood like this. But as each link is dependent on the prior link then we constantly need another explanation for each link we come across. This is the question at hand. Does the chain of links regress infinitely or is there an end to the chain? If we come to an end, how do we understand that first link?

It's actually impossible (though theoretically conceivable) for the chain to extend backwards infinitely for that would mean an infinite past chain would have been traversed by successive addition...ie.....-> Link x -> link y -> link z -> so on all the way to the present. But an infinite past set cannot be traversed by successive addition because it has no starting point and no matter how many links are crossed an infinite number still remain prior to reaching the present. There must be an initial link that is not infinitely behind us. This link cannot be emergent for that just begs the question. It if is emergent then we still haven't found the first link and need to keep going backwards. It cannot be dependent for the same reason. It must be independent. That means it does not depend on any prior conditions for its own existence. It just is and has always existed. It's difficult to conceive of how such a thing can be as our experience is limited to observing finite things. But lack of imagination should not prevent us from acknowledging its necessity.

Great Link Tradesim - I'll be busy reading this for a while

Sir O

 

[jonojpsg]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

It's all too much for me at the moment - my four year old keeps waking up in the middle of the night and crying at us for no apparent reason, how does evolution explain that??!!

Just to throw something more into the mix, how does the second law of thermodynamics and increasing entropy fit into an evolutionary point of view? When the energy in a closed system is inevitably going to reach its most useless form, where does that leave us?

 

[Calliope]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

While we worry that that man-made pollution will eventually make the planet uninhabitable, I consider that man's interference in the laws of natural selection poses a greater threat to our survival. Consider this scenario;

If the Bush family had been share-croppers instead of the inheritors of of ill-gotten wealth, George Junior would not have been President for the last eight years. If he had survived childhood he would have been drafted for Vietnam. If he had survived Vietnam he would now, given his lack of talent, be safely employed as a garbo or roadworker.

As a result of man-made decisions and manipulations he was put in charge or the world's most influential country and allowed to put all our futures in doubt.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Re: What do Aussies believe re Evolution?

It's all too much for me at the moment - my four year old keeps waking up in the middle of the night and crying at us for no apparent reason, how does evolution explain that??!!

Just to throw something more into the mix, how does the second law of thermodynamics and increasing entropy fit into an evolutionary point of view? When the energy in a closed system is inevitably going to reach its most useless form, where does that leave us?

With a finite past.