Mosques

[crux]

Because there is a finite amount of matter, I do believe that at some point people will hit the wall as far as discovery and gaining knowledge goes, and I believe that the questions presented regarding the most mysterious events like these will still likely not be answered.

I'm not even sure what you mean here. If there's a finite amount of matter, doesn't that imply that there's a finite amount of questions? Given the last century - even the last few decades - don't you find it incredible how much we've discovered? There are a myriad of things that can't be tested simply because of technological limits. The construction of the LHC would have been impossible just ten years ago. What leads you to believe that what is mysterious now will be mysterious 10, 50, or 100 years from now? In Biblical terms, how about 2000 years from now?

I don't have a problem with the idea of an omnipotent deity, but rather the idea of a deity as a default answer. It's as if, if no other answer can be definitively proven, the default position rests with god. The problem is that in order for such a position to be taken, it relies on faith. God didn't become the default position born on logic - since we cannot know anything about god, it's illogical to make assumptions based upon a god. Therefor, faith is necessary to bridge those gaps in logic. I'm not trying to imply that it's a bad thing, but it's not science either.

I do agree with Jrecee here. There's still a distinction between creationism and evolution. Evolution was born through observation - creationism through religion. Regardless of whether macro evolution has been proven, evolution itself is still an important scientific breakthrough that is used in countless fields, from agriculture, ecology, medicine, paleontology, anthropology and others. Evolution needs to be taught - the same cannot be said of creationism.

Limewater: I was in a rush (mostly in exhaustion from a long post), so I suppose I mistook your original comment for an argument. Are you actually just trying to imply that your origin beliefs are predicated on faith, rather than science? If so, I've no need to deter that, and I apologize for bringing you into the matter. It's futile to argue with faith, after all.

[Dylan]

I'm not even sure what you mean here. If there's a finite amount of matter, doesn't that imply that there's a finite amount of questions? Given the last century - even the last few decades - don't you find it incredible how much we've discovered? There are a myriad of things that can't be tested simply because of technological limits. The construction of the LHC would have been impossible just ten years ago. What leads you to believe that what is mysterious now will be mysterious 10, 50, or 100 years from now? In Biblical terms, how about 2000 years from now?

What I'm saying is that human understanding cannot progress past a certain point, because there are limits to the advancements we can make in our perception (that's what the reference to matter was, it has only so many possible applications to augment our perception). I believe that there is an inevitable limit to observation, and if there are questions that still cannot be answered at that point.

I don't have a problem with the idea of an omnipotent deity, but rather the idea of a deity as a default answer. It's as if, if no other answer can be definitively proven, the default position rests with god. The problem is that in order for such a position to be taken, it relies on faith. God didn't become the default position born on logic - since we cannot know anything about god, it's illogical to make assumptions based upon a god. Therefor, faith is necessary to bridge those gaps in logic. I'm not trying to imply that it's a bad thing, but it's not science either.

Faith is necessary to bridge the gaps of logic in evolution as well.

I do agree with Jrecee here. There's still a distinction between creationism and evolution. Evolution was born through observation - creationism through religion. Regardless of whether macro evolution has been proven, evolution itself is still an important scientific breakthrough that is used in countless fields, from agriculture, ecology, medicine, paleontology, anthropology and others. Evolution needs to be taught - the same cannot be said of creationism.

So then, are you referring to microevolution? I'm referring to common descent. If you're referring to microevolution, then that is certainly acceptable as it is a verified and scientific concept. Common descent, on the other hand, stands the scientific criticisms in my prior post.

[Jrecee]

2 5 11 23 . . . . 95

You could imagine that the missing number in that pattern is going to be 47. There's a logical scientific reason to believe that. You may not KNOW that the next number is 47. The pattern could be a result of a series of very complex equations (probably, I'm no math expert). But it makes sense to believe that the missing number will be 47 based on observations and concepts that you already understand. Believing that the next number is 47 could be considered faith. Yes there's another possiblity, but based on everything we know right now, 47 is the logical conclusion.

There's a difference between using this sort of faith, which is based on our scientific knowledge and theories that have been tested again and again, and faith that just shoves a religious ideal into a pattern because people want to believe it.

edit. It'd be like telling kids to do their math homework by referring to their English books. Maybe some people arrive at a conclusion that suits them by doing their algebra after reading Of Mice and Men, but to suggest that kids should be purposely taught that way is rediculous.

edit again. I should have used an open number pattern as my example. 2, 5, 11, 23 ___. My revised example would suggest that we need to figure out the next number so that we can continue on with the pattern. In my opinion, creationism is like simply throwing a number in there that we like, and calling the pattern finished. Science would suggest finding the most logical number to fill in the blank, and then continuing on to figure out the next number and the next and the next.

edit again. Grape pop tarts are still awesome.

[Dylan]

2 5 11 23 . . . . 95

You could imagine that the missing number in that pattern is going to be 47. There's a logical scientific reason to believe that. You may not KNOW that the next number is 47. The pattern could be a result of a series of very complex equations (probably, I'm no math expert). But it makes sense to believe that the missing number will be 47 based on observations and concepts that you already understand. Believing that the next number is 47 could be considered faith. Yes there's another possiblity, but based on everything we know right now, 47 is the logical conclusion.

There's a difference between using this sort of faith, which is based on our scientific knowledge and theories that have been tested again and again, and faith that just shoves a religious ideal into a pattern because people want to believe it.

edit. It'd be like telling kids to do their math homework by referring to their English books. Maybe some people arrive at a conclusion that suits them by doing their algebra after reading Of Mice and Men, but to suggest that kids should be purposely taught that way is rediculous.

edit again. I should have used an open number pattern as my example. 2, 5, 11, 23 ___. My revised example would suggest that we need to figure out the next number so that we can continue on with the pattern. In my opinion, creationism is like simply throwing a number in there that we like, and calling the pattern finished. Science would suggest finding the most logical number to fill in the blank, and then continuing on to figure out the next number and the next and the next.

edit again. Grape pop tarts are still awesome.

That's not a good comparison though, the issue is far, far more complex than a linear sequence of numbers. It'd be like if I found several groups of characters, like ABC, 789, and {}]. These are all similar in the sense that they are characters and share a basic two dimensional form, but is it more logical to assume that these characters are simply related to each other as minor offshoots (based on observations of such a phenomenon), or to assume that all of the characters are interrelated in a long string based on an untestable hypothesis?

The parallels are between macro and micro evolution. We see many fossils resembling modern animals, but is it more logical to assume that these are simply microevolutionary offshoots from a similar ancestor, or to assume that all creatures come from the exact same ancestor? Macroevolution has no evidence to support it and no method to test it, so I believe it's more logical that it was microevolution that produced these "ancestors", which far more resemble their own kind than they do those of other species. At least, that would be the most scientific method: sticking to what's measurable to ascertain validity.

[J T]

I don't mean offense, but the more I think about it, the more I like Gunderscored as the name for a deity.

[Octopod]

I don't mean offense, but the more I think about it, the more I like Gunderscored as the name for a deity.

I really mean no offense either but ....LMFAO.

[AppleQueso]

I will never understand why many people of faith, regardless of whether they're fundamentalists or not, seem to take such issue with evolution.

The parallels are between macro and micro evolution. We see many fossils resembling modern animals, but is it more logical to assume that these are simply microevolutionary offshoots from a similar ancestor, or to assume that all creatures come from the exact same ancestor? Macroevolution has no evidence to support it and no method to test it, so I believe it's more logical that it was microevolution that produced these "ancestors", which far more resemble their own kind than they do those of other species. At least, that would be the most scientific method: sticking to what's measurable to ascertain validity.

You're misunderstanding a few things here.

from http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html:

Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.

Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.

Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.

and from http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html:

1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).

3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).

5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

[Dylan]

I will never understand why many people of faith, regardless of whether they're fundamentalists or not, seem to take such issue with evolution.

*snip*

I don't have issues with evolution because I think it stands against my religion, I take issue with evolution because I consider it unscientific. This site has a double standard for "science" it seems:

Science works by use of the scientific method: explanations are found, and tests made to tell which ones are correct.

And yet it consents that macroevolution hasn't been directly observed. It claims that micro and macro evolution are equivalent, but I don't see what this claim is based on. Also, the only forms of speciation observed produced infertile offspring, which should be an indicator. A 6 legged salamander evolving into a 4 legged salamander is not the same thing as a fish developing an entire different system of taking in and extracting oxygen from air, and then developing a new skin and legs to boot. This is not a gradual evolution, this is a sudden change. Additionally, I believe that this idea conflicts with natural selection. Anything that would make an aquatic animal more suited for life on solid ground would be maladaptive to its current habitat, and assuming that this takes millions of years to finally reach the point of acceptable land-living capabilities, it would already be wiped out by the creatures that adapted more appropriately and logically to their environment. There are many hypotheses as to what exactly occurred in this gap, but little actual proof of what could occur to create such a dramatic change.

Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

This also has a double standard, or perhaps dismisses macroevolution as true science. It states that if something is to be scientific, it must be validated by empirical testing, bottom line. It then states that science is not the process of making compatible ideas with a hypothesis. However, it finally states that a "scientific explanation" must make predictions. This paragraph completely and totally contradicts itself. If one cannot infer ideas about a scientific hypothesis, then how can a hypothesis still be scientific if inferences must be made about it? All there is to science is empirical evidence. A lot of what I'm seeing is inference.

By the way, does anyone have any good books on these subjects? I'm already looking at A Brief History of Time and The Origin of Species, are there any other good ones?

[dsheinem]

If there is a God he will end this thread.

just kidding, of course

[jfrost]

If there is a God he will end this thread.

just kidding, of course

You should have locked the thread after saying this.