Posted on 04/28/2008 5:21:00 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Well now. Lets try tying this “theory” to some reality. (You know, the stuff we can see).
If you put a pinprick on a globe in every spot we’ve ever found any fossil remains related to humans, and then added them together, they’d still be the size of a pinprick. Which means, we’ve looked just about nowhere.
Then you look at the number of fossil remains - two trestle tables. Which means, just about damn all. From these astoundingly convincing sources, your fossil record is built and touted as “absolute, proven, not open to discussion”.
Well, you might be happy with that. Doesnt do a heap for me.
Now, let me offer a hypothetical.
Lets say I live in Australia, a continent which also houses Aboriginals who have lived there for - as far as we can tell, which aint far - 10,000 years.
Lets say something comes along - a new ice age - and wipes everyone out.
In a couple of thousand years time, in the new Interglacial, bright eyed young minds dig up bits of my bones, and bits of some old burial sites of Aboriginals. (Perhaps by chance then never found the remains on todays Aboriginals. Or perhaps they all got swept out to sea).
What, given todays beliefs, would they assume was the only possible “true, unarguable” conclusion?
Well, of course, first came the Aboriginals, 12,000 years ago, then came me obviously descended from them 10,000 years later.
Of course, they might by that time have developed intelligence, and be able to say “there could be a variety of explanations. We cannot prove anything. It could be a case of descent because of genetic changes acquired over time. Or maybe two types of people were living concurrently. Or maybe the more recent structure turned up later from somewhere else and something different killed them off. Or maybe, just maybe, we dont have enough data to say anything for sure”
Nah. Never catch on. Got to have a dogma which only the elite “understand”, and then use to say of anyone else “ill educated layman” !!
So no, I dont accept the fossil record. And before you try saying that this isn’t an application of logic, offer some thought of your own, not just another droning choiristers hash of the central dogma your university priests have imposed on you.
Because the series of possible interpretations of the fossil record is logic, devoid of any desire to make it fit a story, or a subjective desire of any kind. It’s just what the facts give us.
We call them different species because the definition of a species is “an interbreeding population” not “a populations that is capable of interbreeding”. Polar bears mate with other polar bears, the fact that they could breed with Grizzly bears and produce fertile offspring doesn't make the two the same species. They simply do not interbreed in the wild.
Also I agree with you that the “Hewitt conjecture” in as much as it is not a tautology (things are the way they are because of the way things are, and if things were different they would be different) is indistinguishable from convergent evolution.
All in all a good summation of the problems of defining species. A word is not the thing, and things are more complex than can always be conveniently labeled.
If one has ever walked from a forest into a swamp one may notice that there is no particular dividing line where the forest becomes swamp; it just gets swampier and swampier until there you are in the swamp.
Thanks for a good post!
At some future period, not very distance as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. Charles Darwin, The Descent of man, page 156
(Emphasis mine.)
We've had one bloody century, and we're well on are way through another, but when I look around and see what countries are overflowing into what other countries, and see different country's reproduction rates dwindling below population maintainence rates, It's looking to me like poor old Charlie may not have been right on that one.
But that's a pretty morbid hope for him to have, anyway.
-Jesse
Isn't that just another way of saying that if something is proven it can be disproven? I think that one's a bit of a word-game. But I digress.
When a hypothesis is well supported by the evidence then it is accepted as a Theory.
But here's the problem: Sometimes a hypotheses will be accepted by some but not by others. And I realize that each side feels that they have the exclusive right to decide whether it's a hypothesis or a Theory and to denounce the other as not real scientists. But the problem still exists, and won't go away by simply pretending it doesn't exist: This is why "Science" needs a dogma -- that no non-natural first-cause happened.
Evolution happens every day.
By way of background, I grew up on a small family farm and participated in all aspects of normal animal husbandry. (Which is hardly uncommon or special, I know.) We had many livestock births but I never saw any baby that grew to be perfectly identical to either of its parents.
There are two kinds of evolution: That which I have seen and know, and that which I have not seen, and, at most, can only believe (until I see it, at which point I can then know it.)
If it didn't then last years flu shot should be just as good.
But this isn't speciation: My understanding is that an immunity is (for all practical purposes) a "blacklist" listing the serial number (DNA) of a certain virus. So the exact same "species" (if you can call a virus a species since it's not even a life form but a bad chain letter) anyway the blacklist is basically against the serial number, or DNA fingerprint. So if the same species -- which had undergone some random changes in DNA (even inactive DNA) so it had a different serial number but was basically the same kind -- were to come back again, then it'll no longer be covered under the old serial number and the old immunity will be of no use. But this is the kind of evolution that we see here and now; the same as when our cow gave birth to a calf who's DNA was not an exact perfect match. (We didn't do any cloning, needless to say.)
It is hardly history, it is a current and ongoing phenomenon.
This division of evolution is very similar to the division of "Science" vs "History": What we did not see would be history. (But history certainly may be a science.) But just because a kind of evolution is present does not mean that a different aspect of it is not history. Just like I wouldn't say that the study of ship building techniques is never history because shipbuilding exists and is practiced today.
What I never did see back on the farm was one kind changing and eventually begetting another kind. It is correct and honest for us to keep in mind the difference between what we know and what we can at best only believe.
-Jesse
At what point does this "microevolutionary" process stop, and what causes it to stop before it becomes "macroevolution."
What I never did see back on the farm was one kind changing and eventually begetting another kind.
What "kinds" are the mudskipper, the porpoise, and the penguin respectively?
Funny you should ask -- "Microevolution" stops and "Macroevolution" starts at the same stopsign where my knowledge of evolution stops and my belief would have to pick up. In other words, as I said, there are two kinds of evolution -- that which I've seen and know, and that which I have not seen and can, at best, only believe.
There are several things that I do know - among which are the fact that lots of people believe passionately with all their heart that all speciation was done by evolution.
But remember, knowing that a bunch of people believe it is not the same as me knowing the evidence.
And I also have seen a lot of insults given as answers to people looking for the evidence and it looks like the US government and universities have thrown a lot of money behind research to prove speciation by evolution (How much government money can you throw behind a theory/Hypotheses before it's hard to tell whether it lives off of the evidence or the funding?) -- but what I have not found is any evidence. Needless to say I'm not well impressed when my debate opponents ask me to prove their point. (In other words, I've been told the likes of "Here's 93,000 links. Go find the evidence yourself, get off your sofa.")
What "kinds" are the mudskipper, the porpoise, and the penguin respectively?
I haven't studied these three animals -- so perhaps you could develop your argument a bit more for me (hey, you brought it up :-) -- but just off the cuff I'd say they are the mudskipper kind, the porpoise kind, and the penguin kind, respectively.
As I said, I have heretofore seen a lot of hype, bantering, etc., but not yet any direct evidence for speciation by evolution.
Remember, that even though many people believe with all their heart in something, and even though many scientists assure me that it's true, if I wish to be scientific I must still consider it a hypotheses unless I myself have seen the evidence and thereby know it. If the best I can do is be assured by other people, then I can, at best, believe it, but I don't know it. But merely believing something doesn't rise to the level of science to me. When I can see the evidence myself, then it'll rise to the level of science for me.
Think how bad it would be if one scientist said "Oh, I found evidence and thus and such as true..." and then all the others said "Oh good now we know that to be true," without doing the experiments themselves and without being able to conceive how such a proposition could be true. In order for it to work, every scientist needs to not consider himself to know something unless he either has seen the evidence himself or has seen others display the evidence and can understand how it all works.
Remember, because science is science and not religion, it's alright for those who haven't yet seen the evidence to try to find the evidence. I've come to the conclusion that the correct answer given to people looking for this evidence should be one of the following:
A: You just gotta trust the macro evolutionary scientists, and ignore anybody that disagrees with them.
B: Here's the evidence: Just read such and such a book or article and you too will be able to know rather then just believe.
C: It's not that simple. It's a very complicated. Actually seeing the evidence first had requires you to learn many scientific skills, then study many thousands of fossils and artifacts. Major in Evolutionary Biology in College for years and then you'll be able to see the evidence for yourself. Otherwise you just won't get it, unless you are happy to believe and not know it.
Basically, those are the only possible 3 answers -- either an inquirer can't have the information, or he can and here it is at article xyz, or he can have the information but he's got to devote a significant and specified amount of effort to learning the topic.
But these aren't what I've been hearing! Why? I can only speculate:Option A defeats the purpose, option B doesn't work because nobody can point to a best evidence, (And I'm talking about evidence, not a strong assertion by a writer that the evidence exists), and option C doesn't make the theory/hypotheses(take your pick) sound reasonable to the common man.
So maybe this explains why I'm not getting anywhere on my quest and why people looking for the actual evidence so they can know rather then only believe receive such unsavory and useless responses.
Thanks,
-Jesse
Go to this post. Read it. Tell me what you think about it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508770/posts?page=142#142
I haven't much time at the moment but will try to reply more later.
But as I said I well know there are lots of people who assure me that its true -- but for me to know it rather then at most believe it, I need to see the evidence myself.
That nice chart tells me that somebody thinks they've got it all figured out -- but I can't see the actual fossils. The few I searched for seemed far too lacking to determine their relation, so in order to even know if the named fossils did make a convincing case I'd have to see them or see to scale photos of them. But even then I still have to trust the accuracy of the people who handled the fossils.
You know, just think how great of a tool for the evolutionist side that list would be if it contained photos of the actual fossil evidence. But here I am again trying to find the evidence for your side of the debate :-)
But just by reading that post you refer me to, I still cannot tell which of the listed sequences are very similar, which are great gaps, and the existence of which are supported by hundreds of fossils and which are supported by just a few bits of bone or tooth or whatever.
Another problem is that 50 intermediate fossils over millions of generations is a very sparse picture. We have more species then that alive today.
If you gave me a bucket full of a million little wooden blocks, each with a random number on one side and each colored a random shade or color on each side, I could select and order some of them in a row so that the numbers all counted up from right to left and the colors went from left to righ. But by selecting and ordering differently, I could demonstrate that dark colors were low numbers and high numbers were bright colors, or I could show just the opposite -- all by selecting the "evidence" I was willing to accept.
Similarly, when I have seen the religious fervor with which scientists preach evolution and denounce any dissent, and when I've seen the other questionable tactics used in trying to argue the side of speciation by evolution, I have to wonder if the fossils that I get to hear about are carefully selected and ordered -- showing something that isn't true. For example, (And yes I realize there are more dimensions to the comparisons then this, but this is only a simple example. My point is still valid.) if I were arranging fossils by size and asserting ancestral relationships, I could show that the horse descended from the dog by starting out with all the dogs that are alive today, and sorting them tiny to big. Then starting out with all the horses today, tiny to big. Then I could say the tiny dog was the original granddaddy of them all, and I could then place the tiny horse as the descendants of the biggest dog. (Actually, the biggest dog is bigger then the smallest horse, so I could eliminate some in the middle there.)
Now of course scientists also take into account the shape of the bones and skull and number of bones and in what structure -- but the principle is still the same -- if you take any two similar species, whether or not they are related to eachother, and if you collect their bones for long enough, you will be able to take advantage of the random change in skeleton and find a skull of one species that was a freak incident in one direction (big, small, wide, etc.) and then find the skull of one of the other species which was randomly abnormal in the opposite way, then put them side by side and say "See here! Das mizzing lingk!
So in order for the evidence to be most meaningful, I'd need to see all of it -- not just that which fit nicely into the global common descent tree. (by global I mean the idea that all life shares one common ancestor.)
So in direct answer to your question, (what I think about the post you referenced), I'd say someone did a pretty nice job of gathering together the info, but I'd have to see the evidence it talks about in order to know whether it was good evidence or not. In and of itself, the post is not evidence. Only with much more research on my part would I know whether it was referring to good evidence or not. If I thought it might be useful, I would research it more. But I'm busy enough that I don't generally feel too compelled to try to find the evidence to support your side when your side won't provide good solid evidence or even give straight answers.
Remember, if the best evidence I have is somebody telling me that "it's so," I cannot honestly say that I know, only that I, at best, could believe. But belief alone isn't really science in the purest sense.
But what do you think about the post you listed for me? (142)
Also, I'm still curious -- the other day you mentioned something about your line of work or whatever -- what do you do? I design electronic circuits and kludge together occasional scripts, just to be on the fair side.
Thanks,
-Jesse
PS: Something else I recently heard of and found very interesting was about inherited dead retrovirus code stuck in DNA. (You might have put me onto that, although I can't find it at the moment. Thanks!) I'd never heard of that before, and quite frankly I'm quite surprised. If true (and again, I'd need to be able to test the data myself) such a thing would be a very thought provoking evidence.
Why Of course. Consistent with your refrain of "not enough" and "too much!" -- this is "not enough." You need more. You need all of the evidence. The whole of it that exists in archives, libraries, fossil data bases, genome sequences, etc., etc., (and all of it apparently packaged neatly in an impossible to accomplish three sentence post on an internet chat forum.)
But this most recent "I-need-to-see-all-the-evidence" hogwash of yours is just more of your mendacious song-and-dance. You're not in the least interested in the evidence. After all, as you previously complained -- "Ahh, just as I thought. There's mountains of solid evidence, and yet no-one can give me one good evidence." and "How come it has to be 93,000 [journal articles] or nothing?"
Your childish dishonesty in this correspondence notwithstanding, I will provide you (courtesy of Ichneumon, who was at the time responding to a poster playing precisely your ridiculous game) with the following small sample of readily available evidence.
Unfortunately, some of the images in the foregoing link have been lost over time (principally in the "Theropod dinosaur to bird evolutionary transition" section), and a few of the links are presently inoperative. It nevertheless remains a reasonable, summary resourse, with a wide variety of internal links for you to follow and study.
You can also re-acquaint yourself with the main NCBI archive and its ancillary free access archive that I directed you to previously (you remember, the life sciences archives that you bizarrely labled "propoganda sites"), and you can actually make use of their internal search engines on this go around.
You can then read through (and follow the links within) the sites available here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and you can peruse some of the many fossil databases available:
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here.
The foregoing, of course, is just a start, the proverbial tip of the iceberg. But once you've familiarized yourself with these resources, get back to me.
Are you like this with every complicated scientific theory that's out there, or only evolution? For example, I think your complaint would apply equally to the germ theory of disease. I personally have never seen a germ, and I haven't seen a germ do whatever it does in the body to cause illness. If I ask for the evidence, I'm either going to be pointed to the various medical journals where that evidence is laid out, but in a way I'm not going to understand without extensive study and training; or I'm going to be pointed to layman-oriented summaries of the evidence that I can pick holes in if I have a mind to. Would it be reasonable for me to demand that a doctor show me a particular pathogen attacking a specific cell before I accept the idea that germs make people sick?
Or take your animal husbandry experience. Can you actually show me a sperm cell sperm fertilizing a cow egg and a cow fetus developing? How do I know you didn't put that calf in there yourself?
Skimming quickly while catching up on a couple days of posts, I read that as "drop them in butter" and thought, my, what an interesting recipe!
You're incorrectly asserting here that evidence is equal to written articles. When I ask for evidence you reply with a list of thousands of articles -- but that's not the same as evidence. If you were to ask me for evidence for creation and I provided a link go a google search for "Evidence for creation" you'd quite likely not be satisfied.
But this most recent "I-need-to-see-all-the-evidence" hogwash of yours is just more of your mendacious song-and-dance.
As long as I'm content to (at most) believe something without knowing it, then I don't need to see the evidence. But I sure hope that scientists don't just claim to know stuff without seeing the evidence.. Honest folks either say "I know it because I saw it" or "I believe it because I heard it from a source I trust." But my experience regarding "Speciation by evolution" has been that lay people take it largely if not entirely by faith. It's looking like many scientists do too.
I will provide you (courtesy of Ichneumon, who was at the time responding to a poster playing precisely your ridiculous game) with the following small sample of readily available evidence.
Thanks. I actually read at least most of that a few days ago. I didn't find anything like evidence. But if there is a certain part that you think is exceptional evidence, I would be glad to re-read it and discuss it. I found lots of people re-speaking popular views on how things happened, but at best I can still only have faith in them -- and then I still won't know but at most would only be able to believe.
The foregoing, of course, is just a start, the proverbial tip of the iceberg. But once you've familiarized yourself with these resources, get back to me.
Thanks for the links... but see it looks as if you're giving me thousands and thousands of articles -- more then I could read in a lifetime (or at least a very long time) -- without giving me a clue as to where to start. They aren't all good evidence (I know because I read a few.) Are you saying that you don't know of any good ones but are sure there are some? or are you saying that I have to read them all and devote significant part of my life to studying the topic before I can see the evidence to the point where I can know rather then at best believe?
Straight answers are sometimes very helpful. Sometimes one does need to say to an inquirer "Learn these laws of physics, try them out yourself, then come back and I'll be able to explain it to you."
A few weeks ago I was visiting with good friends, and one of them wanted to know why some hydrogen gas bubbler gimmick wouldn't extend gas mileage like the website claimed. I had to basically say "You need to learn, understand, know and trust the laws of thermodynamics and of conservation of energy. Then I can explain to you why this can't work as advertised."
Sometimes the gap of missing knowledge (not believage) is just to great and it's appropriate to gently explain to someone that they need to learn some set of skills or knowledge (not believage) before they can see the evidence.
Thanks,
-Jesse
PS: Sir, you really needn't insult me as often as you do. It doesn't make your case look any better. Forum posters know by now that someone's not right just because they insult their opponents.
Every complicated theory that's out there. If I've demonstrated a principle to myself, then I consider my self to know it. If I've been assured that it is true and works by someone I trust and I understand how it's supposed to work and it makes sense with what I do know, then I believe that it's true -- not know. To me, each of the complicated theories that I know about but do not know to be true I consider to have a certain level of certainty based on how well I understand them and their dependent sciences, and how much sense they make, and the like.
For example, I think your complaint would apply equally to the germ theory of disease. I personally have never seen a germ, and I haven't seen a germ do whatever it does in the body to cause illness.
Well, some diseases are bacteria based. I've seen bacteria eating and multiplying in my microscope. I even videoed a paramecium splitting in half. Does that help? :-)
While I have not, for example, seen a virus taking over a cell or whatnot, I do know that I've had many colds. I've got one right now if you needed to know. I've also observed that people tend to catch colds from eachother. So while I consider myself to know that people catch colds from eachother, I don't know just how the mechanism works. But from what I understand of germ theory, it makes sense with what I do know, so I consider germ theory to have a high certainty.
Would it be reasonable for me to demand that a doctor show me a particular pathogen attacking a specific cell before I accept the idea that germs make people sick?
The fallacy here is the idea that one would demand to know how it works before knowing that it does work, even though they witness it working with their very own eyes. You've mixed here two different issues. What would be reasonable would be for you to demand that before knowing that a certain pathogen is catchy, that you'd have to witness someone catching it. Or, it would be reasonable for you to demand before knowing just how a certain pathogen attacks a certain cell -- you would want to see that pathogen attacking that cell.
Or take your animal husbandry experience. Can you actually show me a sperm cell sperm fertilizing a cow egg and a cow fetus developing? How do I know you didn't put that calf in there yourself?
Now see this is a great question! And this is the difference between Historic Speciation by Evolution: If you doubt the result of my experiment, you can easily try it for yourself! Get some rats, mice, or the all famous guinea pig. The difference is we can all get some mice and see what happens. But this really isn't a fair comparison because we can't go repeat the experiment to see whether a fish became a dog, because we're talking about history. So the next best thing would be for the scientists (who for wish more people to be able to know rather then at best believe) to organize the data and provide high resolution photos and complete data in such a way that any careful observer could inspect all the evidence and see just what there was, and come to his own understanding without having to rely in information about thing's he's never seen from people he's never met.
Thanks,
-Jesse
Have you ever heard this joke?
Q: What did the paramecium say after dividing?
A: A pair of me, see'em?! (para-me-see-em)
Your request that I have delivered to your door a convoy of fossil specimens, a full laboratory for genetic testing and sequencing, and a team of scientists who will conduct original research in your living room while you snack on corn chips, is respectfully declined. Those nefarious "written articles" put out by the vast conspiracy of evilutionists will just have to do.
But I sure hope that scientists don't just claim to know stuff without seeing the evidence
Good lord. I honestly thought you had plumbed the depths of your stupidity in your prior posts. Obviously, I was wrong.
I actually read at least most of that a few days ago. I didn't find anything like evidence.
Of course you didn't. After all, it was nothing but that strange and scary "written stuff" that your paranoid delusions tell you not to trust.
But my experience regarding "Speciation by evolution" has been that lay people take it largely if not entirely by faith. It's looking like many scientists do too.
Right. Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will go to work.
Thanks for the links... but see it looks as if you're giving me thousands and thousands of articles -- more then I could read in a lifetime (or at least a very long time) -- without giving me a clue as to where to start.
And the tennis ball returns from the "not enough" side of the net to the "too much!" side of the net. Back and forth we go.
Straight answers are sometimes very helpful.
Straight answers to what? You haven't asked any questions. And no, "gimme all the ebidence in a sippy cup" is not a question.
Are you saying that you don't know of any good ones but are sure there are some? or are you saying that I have to read them all and devote significant part of my life to studying the topic before I can see the evidence to the point where I can know rather then at best believe?
You're big on these all or nothing banalities, aren't you. All you really have to do is stop perfecting the ass-dent in your Laz-E-Boy and educate yourself. If you're unwilling to do that, then quit complaining about your ignorance.
PS: Sir, you really needn't insult me as often as you do.
Good grief, why not? Your posts contain nothing but insults under a thin veneer of feigned inquiry, so responding in kind is perfectly appropriate.
But in the end you're right. Enough of this. Go play your idiotic game with someone else.
But from what I understand of germ theory, it makes sense with what I do know, so I consider germ theory to have a high certainty.
That's pretty much where me and most people are with the TOE, I think. It's a lean and powerful explanation of what I see around me, and it makes sense, so I consider it to have a high degree of certainty.
> Would it be reasonable for me to demand that a doctor show me a particular pathogen attacking a specific cell before I accept the idea that germs make people sick?
The fallacy here is the idea that one would demand to know how it works before knowing that it does work, even though they witness it working with their very own eyes. You've mixed here two different issues. What would be reasonable would be for you to demand that before knowing that a certain pathogen is catchy, that you'd have to witness someone catching it. Or, it would be reasonable for you to demand before knowing just how a certain pathogen attacks a certain cell -- you would want to see that pathogen attacking that cell.
I may be misunderstanding you, but I don't think I'm asking to know how it works. I'm asking to see it work--to witness someone catching it. What does "catching it" mean, if not having the bacteria or virus attack a cell? How do I know that I caught a cold from someone else, rather than that we both caught it from the miasma that was present where we both were? I think asking to see a virus leave their body, enter mine, and take over one of my cells is pretty equivalent to your asking to see a skeleton for every generation of horse from Eohippus to Big Brown.
I would further say that the way you speak of catching colds--"I've observed that people tend to catch colds from each other," "knowing that a pathogen is catchy"--reveals that you've accepted and internalized the germ theory of disease without applying to it the same standards you want to apply to evolution. I have to wonder if that's because germ theory doesn't conflict with anything else you hold to be true, while evolution potentially does.
Thanks. That one was inspired by watching paramecium play, using my homebuilt video-microscope.
That's pretty much where me and most people are with the TOE, I think. It's a lean and powerful explanation of what I see around me, and it makes sense, so I consider it to have a high degree of certainty.
That makes sense. Incidentally, either because of what I've seen in nature and what I know or (more likely) what I haven't seen and what I don't know, the TOE (as in all speciation by evolution) doesn't make as much sense to me. It doesn't explain or permit (to my satisfaction) a lot of what I see. Which is why I've been asking "What must I do for me to see the evidence as well.")
I may be misunderstanding you, but I don't think I'm asking to know how it works. I'm asking to see it work--to witness someone catching it.
Ahh, you're right. You didn't misunderstand me -- but I slightly misunderstood you and didn't word my statement quite right. Sorry about that! Let me try that again! You had said "Would it be reasonable for me to demand that a doctor show me a particular pathogen attacking a specific cell before I accept the idea that germs make people sick?" One doesn't need to see a pathogen attacking a cell to find out whether some sicknesses are catchy, just like one doesn't have to see in action the mechanism which brings us gravity in order to know that gravity has never failed them.
I would further say that the way you speak of catching colds--"I've observed that people tend to catch colds from each other," "knowing that a pathogen is catchy"--reveals that you've accepted and internalized the germ theory of disease without applying to it the same standards you want to apply to evolution. I have to wonder if that's because germ theory doesn't conflict with anything else you hold to be true, while evolution potentially does.
Absolutely! But there some interesting dynamics here. I (and lots of people) are more careful about things they consider important. They also tend to defend the things important to them with more fervor. My observation of human nature has shown me that the origins of everything is very important to many people, and that they will support their view on the topic with great fervor. (And I'm talking about all sides here, not just yours or mine.) I have also found that many people don't have a clue about the evidence relating to the TOE but still believe it with all their heart. I've seen all sides stretching things to try to make their argument look better. So even for these reasons alone, it is proper of me to be a little more careful when accepting evidence. Gently put, I've got a higher chance of being given false evidence regarding a hot topic like the origins of everything then I am on a topic like germ theory that isn't so fought over. Furthermore, somethings are just more important to me (and people everwhere) for example my exact understanding of germ theory doesn't really have a great bearing on my life, at least as far as I know. But the laws of motion and energy are of paramount importance while driving down the road at 55MPH. (yeah. small town.) If someone told me that cars became weightless above 55mph, I'd want to get to the bottom of it lest I go flying off the road. Another reason for me to be more careful about evidence relating to the origins of everything is because -- as you mentioned -- "Everything from nothing" not only violates my understandings of the laws of physics as we know them, but it also contradicts the Biblical account of creation, which I believe. But everybody has a starting point: Some start out believing that God did it, others start out believing that it all came from nothing, and there are other varying ideas as well. And some bright minds (Was it Dawkins?) have even proposed that maybe aliens seeded the first form of life onto the earth. Anyway, everybody starts out at some starting point believing almost everything and knowing almost nothing, then working from their starting point, experimenting, observing, and testing, either proving or disproving their beliefs, as they go. I've observed people enough to know that everybody believes strongly in something -- or strongly against something. I also appears to me that most people select evidence to fit their belief -- on all sides. So there is truth in your idea that I'm more careful when believing accounts of evidence which contradict my current belief/starting point. But there are other valid reasons too : It's a very important topic to me, it's a very important topic to those writing about the evidence (and some stretch it)(And yes some stretch it on my side too) -- and as it relates to morals it also is important. If I bet that God is not, and I lose the bet, then I didn't lose anything besides the bet. But if I bet against God, and lose the bet, now I'm in real trouble. Another reason that I ought to be careful when accepting accounts of evidence for the TOE of everything, is that I have observed a tendency for people to want there to be no God, and no such thing as wrong, so that they can do things which would be sin of God existed. So while I have a moral reason to want God to have created the universe, likewise, many of the people advocating the whole or parts of "From nothing to everything" also have a moral interest in God not existing, and in there being an explanation of how everything came to be without a God. Another aspect to it is that my core value beliefs do not require me to dogmatically reject evidences that appear to suggest that God did it, whereas evolutionary science does have a core dogma that requires it to reject any evidence which suggests a non-natural first-cause -- no matter how strong the evidence is. The problem then is that Science dogmatically rejects something which is possibly valid.
Knowing then that whatever TOE-supporting evidence is being presented to me has been filtered or selected by the dogma that there was no unnatural influence, I must realize that I may not be getting the whole picture. And I also know that given a random dataset, one can, by selecting the correct items only, get any desired result. For example, if I was given a bucket with a thousand randomly colored and randomly sized marbles, I could pick out (select) a few handfulls that clearly demonstrated that the big ones were darker, Or I could instead pick out a different set and demonstrate just the opposite. This of course is an example of the extreme, but it demonstrates the point I'm trying to make. Since I know that science has this dogma, I know that whatever evidence that will be reported by the scientists will already have been filtered by their dogma. Thus, absolutely, there are definitely reasons for one to rightly be more careful of some evidence reports then others.
Aren't you too more skeptical of some evidences then others, depending on how important the topic is, who's telling you, etc?
You are also right about my laxness about germ theory. The small amount that I do know about it makes sense. But I wouldn't bet my life on it. But I don't need to. No person can know everything about everything. Some things have to just be believed, and germ theory seems to be a safe candidate at this time for me :-)
Your post was insightful and thought provoking.
Thanks,
-Jesse
Neither symmetric patterns nor bright colors strike me as being very beneficial when it comes to the caterpillar's ability to avoid monsters. Did God just make them pretty?
My small brain just can't figure it out. Thanks!
-Jesse
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.