Creation vs. Evolution

[Famine]

Are you saying I have frequently misquoted you?

Nope. No accusation was made and no person was named.

Rather than that, just tell me if in your opinion, there is a way to adequately explain any of the ones you cite that does not render them untrue. If they can't be, then tell me why?

Hold up here, sparky. You said:

You indicated that in order to explain a complex concept to someone with a different level of knowledge on the subject, you would have to falsify or in some way compromise the integrity of the concept.

Which is entirely true - that's the jist of what I said, and I gave a brief example of it.

Since explanations are done on a regular basis in various subjects at various levels of understanding without compromisng the integrity of the subject, why do you say this?

All I want is for you to provide me with a backup of the first part of this sentence. You stated it, you back it up.

Provide me with an example of an explanation of a complicated subject in a simplified way which does not compromise the integrity of the subject - preferably in the sciences so that I have something to work with.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Nope. No accusation was made and no person was named.
Hold up here, sparky. You said:
Which is entirely true - that's the jist of what I said, and I gave a brief example of it.
All I want is for you to provide me with a backup of the first part of this sentence. You stated it, you back it up.
Provide me with an example of an explanation of a complicated subject in a simplified way which does not compromise the integrity of the subject - preferably in the sciences so that I have something to work with.

OK, I guess we got to start somewhere.
I was somewhat unsure as to the complexity level which you where referring to. That is why I tossed the ball back in your court.
Lets try these three:
Internal combustion engine
Jet engine
Air Conditioning unit
To my knowledege all of these can be explained in a simplified graphic form without comprimising the concept or principles of operation and yet be understandable to the average person. That is to say "how it works" and not necessarily "why it works". You might even get by on the 2nd part but it may be a stretch.
I would point out that PD did a good job of this in GT3 concerning one of the above examples.

 

[Famine]

OK, I guess we got to start somewhere.
I was somewhat unsure as to the complexity level which you where referring to. That is why I tossed the ball back in your court.
Lets try these three:
Internal combustion engine
Jet engine
Air Conditioning unit
To my knowledege all of these can be explained in a simplified graphic form without comprimising the concept or principles of operation and yet be understandable to the average person.

Possibly - but we're working at a clearly tangible level here. These are all things that people can pick up and have, over the last generation, got used to having in their lives. I doubt the average person could put one together, even when given the correct components and a labelled, step-by-step diagram - the average person would try to buy sparkplugs for a diesel if you asked them to, and couldn't put together an Ikea bookcase in the allotted time, but I digress.

The next bit is the key bit though:

That is to say "how it works" and not necessarily "why it works".

Ding! Now we're moving away from practical engineering onto the scientific principles behind them. Given the simplified diagram of a four-stoke petrol engine, will the average person be able to explain why a 2.5 litre V6, four stroke petrol engine from 1995 can have a lower specific output and a higher rate of fuel consumption than a 3 litre V6, four stroke petrol engine from 2005? Could they explain VTEC or VANOS? Or will they simple know "suck squish bang blow"?

This is the issue. The tiny little details behind the mechanics of the system are completely lost when the system is grossly simplified for the layperson, and all that's left is "suck squish bang blow".


Let me ask you two things, and we'll see what level you answer them at. I'll note that, although I may answer them at a different level, my answer won't necessarily be "correct" either.
1. Explain what causes an apple to fall to Earth in the manner it does.
2. Draw a diagram of a Helium atom. Label the parts.


Almost no-one I know older than 11 would have trouble with either of these things, because it has been taught to them in school for GCSE (exam at 16 years). But their answers would be completely unsatisfactory to an A-level examiner (exam at 18 years), or a degree level lecturer, or a particle physicist. Their answer will be right, but at a grossly simplified level which misses out all of the tiny parts which the system needs to work.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Possibly - but we're working at a clearly tangible level here. These are all things that people can pick up and have, over the last generation, got used to having in their lives. I doubt the average person could put one together, even when given the correct components and a labelled, step-by-step diagram - the average person would try to buy sparkplugs for a diesel if you asked them to, and couldn't put together an Ikea bookcase in the allotted time, but I digress..

I think your getting carried away here. While I agree with your assesment, were not asking them to put the device together, thats a whole nother leap entirely. Only if they can comprehend the how and the why of the basic principle and even at that you will lose some between the two.

The next bit is the key bit though:
Ding! Now we're moving away from practical engineering onto the scientific principles behind them. Given the simplified diagram of a four-stoke petrol engine, will the average person be able to explain why a 2.5 litre V6, four stroke petrol engine from 1995 can have a lower specific output and a higher rate of fuel consumption than a 3 litre V6, four stroke petrol engine from 2005? Could they explain VTEC or VANOS? Or will they simple know "suck squish bang blow"?".

Again, your are leaving the boundaries of the mission and and getting off into application specifics. Trust me, you do not want to go there. You will most likely end up alone.

This is the issue. The tiny little details behind the mechanics of the system are completely lost when the system is grossly simplified for the layperson, and all that's left is "suck squish bang blow".

A couple details aside, that is the basic principle.

Let me ask you two things, and we'll see what level you answer them at. I'll note that, although I may answer them at a different level, my answer won't necessarily be "correct" either.
1. Explain what causes an apple to fall to Earth in the manner it does.
2. Draw a diagram of a Helium atom. Label the parts.


Almost no-one I know older than 11 would have trouble with either of these things, because it has been taught to them in school for GCSE (exam at 16 years). But their answers would be completely unsatisfactory to an A-level examiner (exam at 18 years), or a degree level lecturer, or a particle physicist. Their answer will be right, but at a grossly simplified level which misses out all of the tiny parts which the system needs to work.

Succumbing to the law of gravity.
I havn't been to school in over 30 years, I'd have to look it up.
I think your trying to include too many intricacies, not necessary to the basic principle. However they would be to the real thing.

 

[Famine]

I think your getting carried away here. While I agree with your assesment, were not asking them to put the device together, thats a whole nother leap entirely. Only if they can comprehend the how and the why of the basic principle and even at that you will lose some between the two.

Again, your are leaving the boundaries of the mission and and getting off into application specifics. Trust me, you do not want to go there. You will most likely end up there alone.

At least I'll have someone sensible to talk to out there.

Fact is, even with something as "everyday" as an internal combustion engine, everyone knows how it works - but not very many people know how it works. Just like everyone knows how an apple falls to Earth because of gravity but not very many people know how an apple falls to Earth because of gravity.

By simplifying you lose detail. You reach a level of understanding which, while it explains the system at a gross level, doesn't include an understanding of how the system works.

Have a crack at the atom one. It'll be quite enlightening. I promise (sort of).

 

[Sage]

Heh – right now I’m studying for a chem midterm (tomorrow), so I know exactly where you’re going with this.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

At least I'll have someone sensible to talk to out there.

Fact is, even with something as "everyday" as an internal combustion engine, everyone knows how it works - but not very many people know how it works. Just like everyone knows how an apple falls to Earth because of gravity but not very many people know how an apple falls to Earth because of gravity.

By simplifying you lose detail. You reach a level of understanding which, while it explains the system at a gross level, doesn't include an understanding of how the system works.).

I see what you mean.

Have a crack at the atom one. It'll be quite enlightening. I promise (sort of).[/color][/b]

Thanks, but no thanks.

You know, I get the impression you like GT for the same reason I do.
It's a big simulated, personally interactive, physics puzzle with just the right method by which to solve.

 

[Famine]

You know, I get the impression you like GT for the same reason I do.
It's a big simulated, personally interactive, physics puzzle with just the right method by which to solve.

No - it's because I'm an 8 year old in the body of a 30 year old (not the other way round, because I'm not Michael Jackson).

 

[Small_Fryz]

Supra you ask a question and famine provides some adequete answers and you just dismiss them?

You afraid he will be correct so you choose not to play ball.

 

[a6m5]

Gross!

 

[Casio]

Have a crack at the atom one. It'll be quite enlightening. I promise (sort of).

Because I'm extremely interested in where this is going....

Helium. The Casio way.

 

[Sage]

Aside from what Famine will point out (electron clouds and probability and what not), don’t you think you’re missing something? Maybe a neutron or two?

 

[Casio]

Aside from what Famine will point out (electron clouds and what not), don’t you think you’re missing something? Maybe a neutron or two?

Eh. Probably. I did fail Chem....

 

[OZZYGT]

Is the neutrons charge positive? I thought they were negative and the protons were positive.

BTW, I know electrons charge is negative.

Alright nevermind, I figured it out myself, they have no charge




Ciao!

 

[Touring Mars]

Is the neutrons charge positive? I thought they were negative and the protons were positive.

BTW, I know electrons charge is negative.

Neutrons are neutral, i.e. have no net charge (for all intents and purposes anyway)... Protons are +ve and electrons are -ve. Neutrons and protons have similar masses, while electrons are much less massive (have negligible mass)

An element is defined by the number of protons it has... The same element can have different numbers of neutrons (isotopes) which have the same overall net charge, but a different mass i.e. Carbon-13 and Carbon-14... (6 protons and 7 neutrons, or 6 protons and 8 neutrons etc.)

 

[OZZYGT]

Yeah I edited my post at the same time you posted yours

Thanks though

Protons are +ve and electrons are -ve. Neutrons and protons have similar masses, while electrons are much less massive.

Yeah the mass, that's what I was probably thinking of.

Damn I wanna study chemistry again but it seems I'm gonna have to wait until my fourth semester of Civil Engineering




Ciao!

 

[Pako]

Supra you ask a question and famine provides some adequete answers and you just dismiss them?

You afraid he will be correct so you choose not to play ball.

Maybe I missed something, but..... Famine was called to task, and instead of obliging, he put the labor of proof (so to speak) on SuperCobraJet.

 

[Famine]

Maybe I missed something, but..... Famine was called to task, and instead of obliging, he put the labor of proof (so to speak) on SuperCobraJet.

Partly true. I made a statement and gave an example. SCJ made a counterclaim and I asked him to provide an example of the counterclaim.

I think we've reached a point where we agree though - complex science is condensed into simple explanations so that the layperson thinks they understand it, but they're missing a more complete picture. On occasion - such as with the atom picture and gravity - what they understand is a satisfactory explanation of a given amount of evidence, but wholly inaccurate when more evidence is introduced. This is actually quite a good example of scientific application of Occam's Razor, modifying the theory in accordance with all available evidence as new data arises.

 

[UnoMOTO]

As I was looking for my place to jump in at I saw this quote

Provide me with an example of an explanation of a complicated subject in a simplified way which does not compromise the integrity of the subject - preferably in the sciences so that I have something to work with.

Creation vs. Evolution is a complicated subject in itself. Creation isn't even something that could be simplified. It is what it is? Now getting into heaven could be complicated and when broken down would loose its integrity.
Evolution I see has many problems when trying to simplify the complexity of it. I think that the burden of proof should be all on you to do that. It would be like me learning french and science at the same time to have a conversation to you.
You come in here with the best you have and we will do the same. The idea would be the same if I told you to come up with some bible quotes to get me to understand the bible better. You are asking everyone else to adapte to your way of understanding information. Am I thinking correctly here?

 

[Famine]

As I was looking for my place to jump in at I saw this quote

Creation vs. Evolution is a complicated subject in itself. Creation isn't even something that could be simplified. It is what it is? Now getting into heaven could be complicated and when broken down would loose its integrity.
Evolution I see has many problems when trying to simplify the complexity of it. I think that the burden of proof should be all on you to do that. It would be like me learning french and science at the same time to have a conversation to you.
You come in here with the best you have and we will do the same. The idea would be the same if I told you to come up with some bible quotes to get me to understand the bible better. You are asking everyone else to adapte to your way of understanding information. Am I thinking correctly here?

No - I covered this in the post immediately above yours:

I made a statement and gave an example. SCJ made a counterclaim and I asked him to provide an example of the counterclaim.

That's all. I provided an example to back up my earlier claim and I just asked that SCJ did the same and provide one for his counterclaim. Which he then did. And we now are at accord.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Forgive me for appearing to be stuck on this "belief" thing, but I see something I havn't recognized before about FAMINE and Danoff's statements. Therefore I'm going to throw this out there and see what happens.

I think I have been getting tangled up in the "sequence of operation", when that is not where the debate is at all.
The sequence of operation is the same for all of us and presumes some degree of sobriety, and cognitive or comprehensional skills.

It is thus:

1. Thinking, considering, evaluating, pondering
2. Judging, concluding, determining
3. Faith, believing
4. Action,
5. Trust, confidence

(There are two exceptions to the sequence which are not really important right now so I won't elaborate on that at this time).

Now I think what FAMINE and Danoff are saying, is that at the 1st stage of the sequence they become stuck or stalled since as we can see from FAMINE'S posts he is a very detailed fellow and analylizes evidence at a very deep and volumetric level. This is certainly understandable since we have witnessed first hand in this thread that details can be important.

Unlike them, however, we approach the sequence more in brief much as a juror would, proceeding on "reasonable doubt" based on "preponderance of the evidence presented".

Hence I think due to their conclusive approach and procedure at stage1 they are arrested, and getting on to the next stage becomes very difficult if not impossible. Consequently most of the time they are unable to express confidence in their decisions even if they have proceeded unknowingly through the other stages.

What do you think?

 

[UnoMOTO]

No - I covered this in the post immediately above yours:



That's all. I provided an example to back up my earlier claim and I just asked that SCJ did the same and provide one for his counterclaim. Which he then did. And we now are at accord.

humm...I don't think thats what I was asking? Nevermind

 

[Touring Mars]

Unlike them, however, we approach the sequence more in brief much as a juror would, proceeding on "reasonable doubt" based on "preponderance of the evidence presented".

What do you think?

I wish more people would give a 'preponderance of the evidence presented' because most people who reject evolution simply do not look at the evidence at all, let alone consider it in an evolutionary context. 'Beliefs' simply don't enter into it for me. You can stretch the definition of the word belief in any which direction it suits one's argument, but I wouldn't use the word 'belief' to describe how I feel about many things - like the forces of gravity, for example - for me, saying you 'believe' gravity is moot. Similarly, I don't simply 'believe' evolution, because the evidence (of which there is ample, if you care to look) is so overwhelmingly in favour of the theory and so utterly contrary to 'alternative' theories, such as Intelligent Design.

Certain aspects of evolution theory may be complex, but the basic mechanisms as well as the straightforward evidence for 'facts' of evolution are not. There simply is no other more plausible explanation for the genetic relatedness of species than the Theory of Common Descent...

Ironically, even the Bible teaches a form of this theory - that we are all descended from Adam and Eve (ultimately)... for a book written 2,000 years ago, that is a pretty impressive insight, because it is largely correct - we do indeed all share a common ancestry - this is proven beyond all doubt (and not just 'reasonable doubt' to satisfy the 'jurors' among us)... However, the Bible doesn't go quite far enough back in time... it presupposes that humans were the beginning, the first stage of this process of common ancestry. Given the scientific knowledge and the religious climate at the time, the authors (or should I say, the scribes) who wrote the Bible could easily be forgiven for making this mistake. However, now that we can see the common descent across all species, it is now no longer valid to consider humans as the starting point for common descent - this, too, is proved beyond all reasonable doubt - if you care to look at the evidence, that is.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I wish more people would give a 'preponderance of the evidence presented' because most people who reject evolution simply do not look at the evidence at all, let alone consider it in an evolutionary context. 'Beliefs' simply don't enter into it for me. You can stretch the definition of the word belief in any which direction it suits one's argument, but I wouldn't use the word 'belief' to describe how I feel about many things - like the forces of gravity, for example - for me, saying you 'believe' gravity is moot. Similarly, I don't simply 'believe' evolution, because the evidence (of which there is ample, if you care to look) is so overwhelmingly in favour of the theory and so utterly contrary to 'alternative' theories, such as Intelligent Design.

Certain aspects of evolution theory may be complex, but the basic mechanisms as well as the straightforward evidence for 'facts' of evolution are not. There simply is no other more plausible explanation for the genetic relatedness of species than the Theory of Common Descent...

Ironically, even the Bible teaches a form of this theory - that we are all descended from Adam and Eve (ultimately)... for a book written 2,000 years ago, that is a pretty impressive insight, because it is largely correct - we do indeed all share a common ancestry - this is proven beyond all doubt (and not just 'reasonable doubt' to satisfy the 'jurors' among us)... However, the Bible doesn't go quite far enough back in time... it presupposes that humans were the beginning, the first stage of this process of common ancestry. Given the scientific knowledge and the religious climate at the time, the authors (or should I say, the scribes) who wrote the Bible could easily be forgiven for making this mistake. However, now that we can see the common descent across all species, it is now no longer valid to consider humans as the starting point for common descent - this, too, is proved beyond all reasonable doubt - if you care to look at the evidence, that is.

Obviously it depends on who is doing the prepondering and their concept of what constitutes reasonable doubt.
Beliefs enter into everything whether you recognize it or not. You would not make the statements you do if they didn't. You have rendered your opinion based on your belief of the evidence.
Since you nor anyone else can prove origin to even a point approaching reasonable doubt, if your beliefs were not at work, you would say: Niether is conclusive. Both are possible.
BTW the Bible does not presuppose, it declares.

As this thread clearly indicates, we have a "hung jury".

 

[Touring Mars]

You have rendered your opinion based on your belief of the evidence.

OK, even if that were true, what is wrong with that? All of the evidence from the natural world points towards evolution and away from intelligent design. Whether I, you or anyone else believes the facts doesn't change those facts. That's why I said that believing in gravity (for example) is moot... one's opinions or beliefs are irrelevant in the broader context.

Since you nor anyone else can prove origin to even a point approaching reasonable doubt, if your beliefs were not at work, you would say: Niether is conclusive. Both are possible.

Depends what you're talking about when you refer to origins... Origin of life from first principles? The jury is still well and truly out there. But the origin of Mankind? The jury has returned it's verdict - Mankind has evolved from more humble beginnings. The human species was certainly not among the first living things ever to exist on Earth, and for that there is so much evidence that it is almost beyond belief that anyone would still argue against it.... but that is precisely what Creationists do. I accept that the greater issue of absolute origins will remain mysterious for some time to come, but Creationists should atleast accept that, on the origin of our species only, the Biblical account as written in Genesis is plain wrong... the 'evidence' put forth to support Creationist claims of a young Earth and, more specifically, of a young Earth co-habitted by humans and dinosaurs simulatenously, is so laughably flawed that it is scarcely any wonder why people don't take any of it seriously....

Here is an example of Creationist logic which constitutes 'evidence' for dinosaur and man cohabitation...
"Man exists now. Crocodiles exist now. Crocodiles existed at the same time as Dinosaurs. Therefore, Man existed at the same time as Dinosaurs."... that's a real example (abbreviated) from Answers In Genesis...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

OK, even if that were true, what is wrong with that? All of the evidence from the natural world points towards evolution and away from intelligent design. Whether I, you or anyone else believes the facts doesn't change those facts. That's why I said that believing in gravity (for example) is moot... one's opinions or beliefs are irrelevant in the broader context.

Nothing.
As I said before, that is your opinion, based on your belief.
I,m not sure about the facts part.

Depends what you're talking about when you refer to origins... Origin of life from first principles? The jury is still well and truly out there. But the origin of Mankind? The jury has returned it's verdict - Mankind has evolved from more humble beginnings. The human species was certainly not among the first living things ever to exist on Earth, and for that there is so much evidence that it is almost beyond belief that anyone would still argue against it.... but that is precisely what Creationists do. I accept that the greater issue of absolute origins will remain mysterious for some time to come, but Creationists should atleast accept that, on the origin of our species only, the Biblical account as written in Genesis is plain wrong.

Just answered that.

 

[Touring Mars]

As I said before, that is your opinion, based on your belief.

Well, yes... I suppose it is my opinion, based on my understanding of the evidence, and my belief in the robustness of that evidence...

I,m not sure about the facts part.

No amount of belief in anything can make it actually be true. Belief is not the criterion by which something is judged 'true' or 'factual' or otherwise. Infact it is pretty much the opposite. Simply believing something is true without any evidential support is, in science atleast, not worth bothering about.

Just answered that.

Sorry, I missed that... just to clarify, do you believe that mankind has 'always' inhabited the Earth as per the Biblical creation myth? Obviously, I don't... but I believe it's important to stress that simply believing that mankind is a product of evolution does not make one an atheist by default... the difference between the debate about the origins of life and the origins of our species is a key one...

 

[wfooshee]

In the dark ages it was "believed" that the Earth was flat, and sailing too far to sea you would fall off the edge. Where to? I've not seen that specified.

In medieval times it was "believed" that the Earth was the center of all things, and the sky was a sphere that contained everything. The sun, moon, planets, etc. moved around in this space, somehow.

Both were wrong. As science advanced to present evidence contrary to "beliefs," those presenting the science were scorned, ridiculed, imprisoned, and suppressed by whatever means were available.

Yet NOBODY in the Creationist camp sees any parallel??!??!?!?!!?? They stick to their "beliefs" despite the overwhelming evidence.

 

[Danoff]

1. Thinking, considering, evaluating, pondering
2. Judging, concluding, determining
3. Faith, believing
4. Action,
5. Trust, confidence

Here's my order of operations:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7. Publish results

Notice the lack of the word "believe" in there. Once again, I submit that action does not require belief or faith. When you place a bet at vegas, you do not "believe" you will win, you "hope" you will win. That is one (of many) example of action without faith/belief.

Action without beleif is life. You drive home knowing you could get into an accident. You eat knowing it could kill you. You buy something from amazon.com knowing that your credit card could get stolen. You cross the street knowing you could get hit. There are thousands upon thousands of actions you take every day, all of which are based on evidence, none of which are based upon certainty.

So basically, drop the whole "action requires belief" nonsense.

 

[Swift]

Both were wrong. As science advanced to present evidence contrary to "beliefs," those presenting the science were scorned, ridiculed, imprisoned, and suppressed by whatever means were available.

Yet NOBODY in the Creationist camp sees any parallel??!??!?!?!!?? They stick to their "beliefs" despite the overwhelming evidence.

Well, there's a specific difference to the government being controlled by the church and hence controlling everything and free people having their own belief set.

To be honest, almost the same thing can be said about Christianity. All but one of the disciples was killed in a very brutal fashion, Paul had his head cut off, Steven was stoned to death, etc. Now if we go by your logic, then the people at the time were trying to suppress, ridicule and imprison anyone that had ties to Jesus. This was in the days when Jesus was alive or shortly after his ascension.

All I'm saying is that this "oppression" and ridicule have nothing to do with evolution and creation.

So basically, drop the whole "action requires belief" nonsense.

But it does require trust to at least some degree.