Guest Jodie Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Jodie, it was just a simple question. I wasn't trying to confront anyone. It is the biggest question in the room for evolution (if evolution is true where is the proof)Sorry you felt that was confrontation. When you "believe" in evolution, aren't you regurgitating some other scientist views? Or do you have proof of evolution yourself. No confrontation Jodie, just questions. Ok Will, I misread you, I apologize. When I look at research, I've had enough training to recognize the flaws or limitations in the research to know whether their results should be considered. It's simple, just look at the sample size, the variables involved, and whether the appropriate statistical method was used, and if the interprtation of stats are correct (numbers can be very twisted). With evolution, that's a tad different since you have so few remains to base the theories on, alot of the DNA work has confirmed and refuted some of evolution's conclusions. However, the premise of it is correct based on what I've read over the years, that's not belief, that's fact to me. To answer your question, NO, I don't consider myself regurgitating someone else's opinion, I use my own judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 No, I don't consider myself regurgitating someone else's opinion, I use my own judgement. ....and those of us who aren't trained biologists or the like, whilst still able to access the base studies, are better off reading Science journals where the results are explained and put in context. There must be dozens in the States, but I don't know their titles. There a 3 or 4 excellent ones over here which you probably don't get. Online, try Science Daily.......although with online sites for some reason I still feel a little cautious. So, although there is no belief involved, you do have to make a judgement about the sources of your information. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 ....and those of us who aren't trained biologists or the like, whilst still able to access the base studies, are better off reading Science journals where the results are explained and put in context. There must be dozens in the States, but I don't know their titles. There a 3 or 4 excellent ones over here which you probably don't get. Online, try Science Daily.......although with online sites for some reason I still feel a little cautious. So, although there is no belief involved, you do have to make a judgement about the sources of your information. Mike Evolution is a theory right. So there must be just a little belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) Evolution is a theory right. So there must be just a little belief. No. No, no, no!!! A theory in science is..........no, let me stop........and let me quote........: Let's try the Oxford English Dictionary: a scientific theory is "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed". Then how about Professor Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences: "first, a theory in science is much more than just a speculation about how things are. It is a well thought out group of propositions meant to explain facts about the real world. Atomic theroy isn't just the statement that atoms exist; it's a statement about how atoms interact with one another, form compaounds and behave chemically. Similarly, the theory of evolution is more than just the statement that evolution exists; it is an extensively documented set of principles..........that explains how and why evolution happens. ....... second.....For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be TESTABLE and MAKE VERIFIABLE PREDICTIONS. That is, we must make observations of the real world that either support it or disprove it. Atomic theory was initially speculative, but gained more and more credibility as data from chemistry piled up..........Because a theory is accepted as true only when its assertions and predictions are tested over and over again, and confirmed repeatedly........In Darwin's day, the evidence for his theroies was compelling but not completely decisive..........but has graduated to 'facthood' as more and more supporting evidence has piled up. Evolution is still called a theory, but just like the theory of gravity, it is a theory which is also a fact". So no, a theory doesn't imply belief. Not my words, but I'll happily defend them. Mike Edited January 1, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 In the case for evolution, as I said there are some basic facts about it that have been proven regarding the process, but many more that have not such as what caused the origin of life. Do you see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 In the case for evolution, as I said there are some basic facts about it that have been proven regarding the process, but many more that have not such as what caused the origin of life. Do you see? I believe I may have agreed that previously. Without searching back throught the thread..... and I am sure that I also said "They're working on it". I would contest the balance between "some" and "many" from your sentence, replacing them with "most" and "some" in that order. But hey, I'm just an architect, not a biologist. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Sorry,I liked my word order better, minus the typos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Here are a couple links you might like to read Will. My original point was,and is, that theories are affected by beliefs and bias, and this whole conversation is a great example of it. It does not matter to me who is right or wrong, what matters is exploring possibilities with an open, and objective a view as possible. Often when you try to do that, what you get is an attempt by others to educate you on why their beliefs are right, and yours are wrong, rather than a true exploration of the possibilities. http://www.science20.com/florilegium/science_belief_religion_science_recent_research this next link is just an example of another opinion on the origins of life,and again,I do not care if someone believes it or not,but it is a very interesting read. http://lifesorigin.com/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) I find it odd that our physisists and our biologists dont work together in their scientific exploration of the nature of our planet and universe. For some time now physisists have been speaking in terms of non linear time - that is to say that time does not move in one direction only (linear time being the concept that time moves in one direction and we think of it as past to present to future). Now if the actual physics of our universe is at the very least non linear in terms of time, then how does evolution in the way biologists think of it, occur? Time doesnt evolve in the sense biologists still speak of it. Not too long ago, people believed the earth to be flat and along with that was a whole world view. If something is taken as an absolute fact then much is based upon it, and it takes much time before people start to see that in fact, this was just an assumption about the world. Many now take it as absolute fact that time is linear and while some have learnt to see outside of this (while still enjoying the linear concept) it would take a long while for those who think it to be a fact to reajust the way they see their world based on their linear perspective. There have of course been societies that understood time to be open and these societies were seen as backword by the european and british societies who took their land and tried to apparently save them from their culture.The Australian aboriginal people have the dreaming - its not a begining as such but it is a sort of ongoing creation in inception. Yes they had creator spirits - the rainbow serpent being the most known outside of Aboriginal culture, but these do not have a fixed time, they are not gone. Edited January 1, 2012 by Encounter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) Interesting articles, I can't say I don't disagree with some of the thoughts regarding science but with science you tend to build your conclusions on the tangible rather than on the intangible. I think that disqualifies science as a religion these days. Seperation of science and the metaphysical is a new concept. That's not to say that at some point in the future the two can not be reunited into one if we ever find the unified field theory for everything or the Higgs boson. Have you ever considered that we possibly perceive time running backwards? I'm just saying......Time is a 3 dimensional frame of reference. It may be that we have such a poor understanding of time that everything we think we know is probably wrong on a macro scale, but for right here and now, science works more often than it doesn't. I can't speak for anyone else but me, but my spritual beliefs don't conflict with what I see science confirming. What's wrong with asking the questions from either perspective? Edited to say- I'm just now seeing your reply Encounter, sorry for the redundancy. Edited January 1, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 this next link is just an example of another opinion on the origins of life,and again,I do not care if someone believes it or not,but it is a very interesting read.http://lifesorigin.com/index.html If you are going to keep linking to Creationist/ Intelligent Design websites, maybe you could please find some peer-reviewed science to back up their claims? If they are going to dismiss the work of thousands of scientists with an "it's impossible" claim, then please, where are their scientifically-published alternatives? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Interesting articles, I can't say I don't disagree with some of the thoughts regarding science but with science you tend to build your conclusions on the tangible rather than on the intangible. I think that disqualifies science as a religion these days. Seperation of science and the metaphysical is a new concept. That's not to say that at some point in the future the two can not be reunited into one if we ever find the unified field theory for everything or the Higgs boson. Have you ever considered that we possibly perceive time running backwards? I'm just saying......Time is a 3 dimensional frame of reference. It may be that we have such a poor understanding of time that everything we think we know is probably wrong on a macro scale, but for right here and now, science works more often than it doesn't. I can't speak for anyone else but me, but my spritual beliefs don't conflict with what I see science confirming. What's wrong with asking the questions from either perspective? Hi Jodie, you posted this after my post on non linear time and the concept that our root assumptions about the nature of the universe then lead us to see the world according to these assumptions (just the post above). The open time concept is that all happens at once and multidimensionally. In open time it follows that the Dinosor still exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) I am simply presenting alternatives Mike, if that disappoints you, or is contrary to your "beliefs", I am sorry for that. It all keeps coming back to the the chicken verses the egg argument for me. As I stated,my own beliefs are irrelevant,and I am not seeking to "re-educate" you, I am simply showing another perspective,that is just as valid as yours,even though it may not be as popular. Why does it make you feel this way to have your own beliefs questioned? Or...read this? http://www.science20...recent_research Either way, I really have no urge to question,or debate your personal beliefs, I have already repeated what my intend was,and is. Edited January 1, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 I am simply presenting alternatives Mike, if that disappoints you, or is contrary to your "beliefs", I am sorry for that. It all keeps coming back to the the chicken verses the egg argument for me. As I stated,my own beliefs are irrelevant,and I am not seeking to "re-educate" you, I am simply showing another perspective,that is just as valid as yours,even though it may not be as popular. Why does it make you feel this way to have your own beliefs questioned? Or...read this? http://www.science20...recent_research Either way, I really have no urge to question,or debate your personal beliefs, I have already repeated what my intend was,and is. How is it just as valid when they don't use any real science, just "belief". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) ...Let's try the Oxford English Dictionary: a scientific theory is "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed".... So no, a theory doesn't imply belief. Not my words, but I'll happily defend them. Mike Hi Mike, Im not sure on what everyone has said re their concept of belief and theory - but my thought is that underneath every theory whether it be a reputable scientist you would trust or a philosopher you may find questionable, is an assumption concerning the nature of the world. I used examples above in my post re physisists views and biologists views. When people were absolutely sure without question that the world was flat they based their theories on other matters according to that view which they just took as everyday truth. Biologists believing in evoltution have an absolute view underneath their theories that time is linear, that is to say time moves in one direction from past to present to future. Physisist now often just start their investigations with the assumption time is not linear, that it does not just move in one direction. Physics is the type of science (coupled as it use to be with metaphysics and philosophy) that led to the belief the world was not flat but spherical, circular. So while I understand you see a scientific theory as not just belief, still the scientists working on that theory had a set of assumed beliefs about the world which led them to start working on that theory - as did Darwin. Just my thoughts here. Edited January 1, 2012 by Encounter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts