|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What does the fossil record show? |
| Dinosaurs once walked the earth alongside people! |
|
17% |
[ 13 ] |
| God planted the fossils to test our faith! |
|
4% |
[ 3 ] |
| There were multiple successive creations before the current one. |
|
6% |
[ 5 ] |
| Those fossils are a giant hoax! |
|
2% |
[ 2 ] |
| I don't know but evolution ain't the answer anyway! |
|
10% |
[ 8 ] |
| [Insert personal wacko theory here] |
|
4% |
[ 3 ] |
| It proves evolution of course! |
|
54% |
[ 40 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 74 |
|
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| Does anyone know the origin of life? |
First you do know evolution is not a theory about the origin of life any more than chemistry is a theory about the origin of the atoms. Evolution is both a fact (the change of alleles over time in a given population) and a theory how these changes lead to species. When we speak of evolution, we generally speak about the second part, the theory that the diversity of life we see today came from simpler life.
| Quote: |
| Thus, life redefined and properly sensible should include all aspects of the phenomenon of life. It should also be recognized that no single aspect of life exists in isolation. |
Right. That's religion or whatever moral philosophy you choose. Science examines isolated aspects. How you take the facts and theories of science and meld them into a world view is all up to you. Go for it.
| Quote: |
| However, his theory does not explain how species form. |
Odd because that's exactly what evolution explains. Maybe it doesn't explain it to your satisfaction but to modern biology it's a pretty good explanation.
| Quote: |
| There is no satisfactory explanation for the formation of new species. And certainly no evidence for the ordinary sequence of events taken for granted, such as: ape to man. |
Well, ape to man is an over simplification. From an earlier form common to ape and man to man is a more accurate description. And there is, of course, loads of evidence, notably the molecular evidence: pseudo genes, endogenous retroviruses, etc. The theory that currently best explains the molecular evidence is evolution. For example, a common ancestor of ape and man was infected by a retrovirus. It remains in the genome. As that species evolved, the retrovirus would mutate (and they would only mutate, not be selected out because there is no selective pressure). More recent a common ancestor, we should find more similarities between the endogenous retrovirus's DNA. Sure enough man and ape have much more similar endogenous retroviruses than man and gibbon. The only theory that currently explains this is evolution. Maybe there's a better one but no one has proposed it and established lines of evidence.
| Quote: |
| And no one has offered any, only huffing and puffing and absurdly sophomoric intellectual arrogance. |
That's a rather broad generalization about the decades of scientific work of evolutionary science. What would be an example of huffing and puffing?
| Quote: |
| The last straw of science is �mutation.� If we depended on mutation for evolution of complexity�we do agree that biological systems of even the most simple organisms are complex beyond our puny human comprehension, don�t we?�well, we would still be molecules in the primordial soup. The probability just doesn�t add up. |
Evolution is not about simply mutation. Evolution is not about putting a bunch of parts in a box, shaking it, and hoping random chance puts the parts together. Survival pressures select beneficial random mutation and decrease non beneficial ones. There are two mechanism at work. Simply saying you don't believe it is an argument from personal incredulity. Fallacy.
| Quote: |
| We perceive only what our consciousness allows us to perceive, and that limited perception is further clouded by the limits of language and culture. Science rejects a whole host of phenomena as unreal (even God wouldn�t be this arrogant) and tries to fit every acknowledged phenomenon into its mechanistic and reductionistic system. |
Science only attempts to study what can be observed and measured. It does not try to "fit" things outside of that. Can you give an example? Science does not reject anything as "unreal", especially if it's obvious it can be observed or measured. It certainly doesn't accept claims as fact until there is sufficient evidence. But that's not the same as rejecting something as "unreal". What is something science rejects as unreal? Can you give an example?
| Quote: |
| So we need to answer theses questions: How did life begin? How does a new species arise? These questions will lead to larger questions such as: What is the origin of matter? Why is it organized in the way we perceive it? What is the force behind subatomic particles? How does energy move and transform? What exactly is energy? Where does it come from? How do we perceive at all? How the heck do we know that we know, if we know? |
Scientists are working in all those fields. So?
| Quote: |
| We will find the answers to these questions if, first, we are willing to acknowledge our ignorance (and punishable arrogance) and kneel before the universe in humility. |
I think most scientists acknowledge they know only a small, small part of what is to be known. Do you know any that claim otherwise? Could you quote one? I think most scientists are rather humbled by the universe. I don't know many scientists that look at Hubble photos and go "meh, that's nothing". It is because scientists know they know hair one compared to what's unknown that they get out of bed every morning. There's lots of work to be done.
| Quote: |
| Then we need to rewrite much of our science, especially biology, |
Why? You've made no compelling argument for this beyond some obviously ignorant ideas about what science is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
I watched that ABC "debate". Both sides were not particularly strong, but the evolutionists at least had truth on their side.
Kirk Camron embarrassed himself. What a total fool. Those two were bad, even for the jesus types. |
I thought the sides well balanced. If the god boys went up against say Vic Stenger and Ken Miller it would have been game over. But basically you had a couple amateurs up against a polished hollywood actor and a nut bag.
Crocoduck? Good Xenu... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello, arjuna!
And welcome aboard!
We needed a new adversary. Junior seems to have quit, Meeguk signed out, and we got tired of trying to find common ground with Rteacher.
The authors of Of Pandas and People try to hold scientists accountable for saying that fishes evolved into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, and so on, but scientists no longer hold to that view.
Rather, they hold to the view that fish evolved in a sequence like the following:
and that each land animal order evolved independently from the first tetrapods.
Yes, scientists were wrong, and they admit it.
Creationists often take scientists to task for admitting they were wrong and correcting themselves.
But at least scientists are trying to find the truth.
Your post left me wondering how you account for evolutionary sequences such as this one.
The authors of Of Pandas and People seem to think that each species went extinct and God created a new one in its place.
But that notion would contradict the Genesis account, in which God created all of the species in the beginning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for your responses. I don't particularly dispute any of your points. If you define science as such, then it is what science is to you. Since I argue from a different perspective of science, I would obviously appear ignorant to you.
If you read me carefully, I do not dispute changes in life forms through time. I do not accept the explanations of "evolution" as satisfactory.
Examples of phenomena rejected by science? Let's see. Just about everything it cannot measure through its instruments which are based on limited human senses. They would be too numeros to mention, but the well known one would be what the Chinese call chi; another one would be the human aura. And so on.
I sure like a good discussion, but I think any further discussion between us would be a waste of time for both you and me. I don't think you will understand me however much I speak, and you would feel the same about me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| Examples of phenomena rejected by science? Let's see. Just about everything it cannot measure through its instruments which are based on limited human senses. They would be too numeros to mention, but the well known one would be what the Chinese call chi; another one would be the human aura. And so on. |
If science can't measure it, then it is wise of science not to enter that realm. No? Science has nothing to say about democracy vs communism. Does it mean science rejects political systems as being "real"? What do you mean by "reject" exactly? You want science to accept something it has no business in? That makes no sense.
It seems to me regarding chi and auras, people do make testable claims. No? Chi can move objects or people can sense this "energy". People can see auras and determine personality types or diagnose disease. Testable claims are amenable to science. Many people make claims such as "I can move objects with my mind" or "I can read your aura and diagnose disease." It's then very easy to set up a controlled, double blind test. Oddly, no one has ever been able to demonstrate there is even an observable effect when placed under controlled conditions and a qualified magician has eliminated the possibility of simple stage magic being passed off as "powers".
But let me point out, when you keep looking for something and fail to find it, you begin to suspect the safe bet is the effect simply does not exist. You can keep looking for the Loch Ness Monster but after a couple good wall to wall sonar sweeps of the waters and you find zip, the safe bet is it ain't there. There is always a possibility it does exist. but the safe money bet certainly tilts.
So yes, science has tested many people who make claims that chi and auras have measurable effects and have found nothing. If you can't demonstrate an effect, then you don't get entered into the big book of all science. It's the way it works.
If you want to claim there is an immortal soul, cool. How do we test that? Not possible. Science says nothing. If you want to claim that soul interacts and exhibits an observable phenomenon (when people die on the operating table and come back, they "see" things), then that's testable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let's get a few things clear.
I think all of you are making an assumption about my "qualifications." And nateium went further to appeal to the authority of "professionals." Do I need to explain to you why these errors are telling? Do you remember what I said about the human tendency to worship authority? I will not discuss my qualifications. They are irrelevant.
In response to Privateer, I gave you something to think about. My language may appear incomprehensible. But it is precise, and if you are intelligent enough, you will be able to figure out what I mean.
| arjuna wrote: |
| Molecular DNA is a physical phenomenon of information. Information is the pattern of movement of energy. The pattern captured in semi-stasis is DNA. Thus, DNA is more than a just molecule and has a mechanism for protecting itself from random mutations that is extremely efficient. Life protects itself against entropy. |
If I try to take this further and elaborate on it, you will not be able to follow me. That's partly why I left the above statement at that extent. If you want to understand what DNA is, consider the above statement carefully.
About phenomena rejected by science: Boundaries between systems of thought are for practical purposes only. A division between science and politics would be a good practical division. A division between science and art would also be practical, though restricting (at least to me). However, the functioning of the soul belongs squarely in science. In the end, it is all science and knowledge, and beauty that a soul can create. I understand that I make no sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Okay, professor, if there has been any scientific study of the soul, tell us about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| Molecular DNA is a physical phenomenon of information. Information is the pattern of movement of energy. The pattern captured in semi-stasis is DNA. Thus, DNA is more than a just molecule and has a mechanism for protecting itself from random mutations that is extremely efficient. Life protects itself against entropy. |
But it does mutate, didn't you watch Spiderman?
Now, if you have some compelling evidence of an alternative to Darwinian Evolution as it is understood today, please present it.
Science moves to reduce faith through evidence, if you feel the fossil record is not good enough then without moving the goal posts further please entertain me with what is.
nateium appealed to his own authority, he can do this, but he was a bit of the mark suggesting you could not debate this, I say this because many of us her don't have scientific training.
If you have evidence for the soul please share it. As you claim the soul is part of science, can you reduce faith in the soul to scientific facts?
| arjuna wrote: |
| I understand that I make no sense. |
Let's not make that your epitaph.
[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
Let's get a few things clear.
I think all of you are making an assumption about my "qualifications." |
Did we? Where?
| Quote: |
| And nateium went further to appeal to the authority of "professionals." Do I need to explain to you why these errors are telling? |
Bear in mind the fallacy is properly "an improper appeal to authority". "Einstein says x about bees" vs "Einstein says x about gravity." There are proper appeals to authority.
| Quote: |
| Do you remember what I said about the human tendency to worship authority? I will not discuss my qualifications. They are irrelevant. |
Well, you brought it up, no? But that's fine. I don't really care.
| arjuna wrote: |
| Molecular DNA is a physical phenomenon of information. Information is the pattern of movement of energy. The pattern captured in semi-stasis is DNA. Thus, DNA is more than a just molecule and has a mechanism for protecting itself from random mutations that is extremely efficient. Life protects itself against entropy. |
So what?
| Quote: |
| About phenomena rejected by science: Boundaries between systems of thought are for practical purposes only. A division between science and politics would be a good practical division. A division between science and art would also be practical, though restricting (at least to me). However, the functioning of the soul belongs squarely in science. In the end, it is all science and knowledge, and beauty that a soul can create. I understand that I make no sense. |
If there is some aspect of the soul that can be observed and tested, then surely that is in the domain of science. What is it? If you have a claim, put it forward, test it. Science is a consensus endeavor. If the evidence is good for your claim, it achieves consensus. If the evidence is poor or non existent, then it gets little mind share in the field. You keep dragging up this "rejected" term without giving me a good example or even a good definition. You talking a priori rejection? I know in my heart of hearts this simply isn't true so I'm simply not going to look at your data. There are certainly scientists in the world who think like that and I would not want to see that being the dominant position in science.
Or are we talking this kind of rejection: Someone claims there is a pony that farts rainbows and offers no evidence. One might claim science rejects the notion it is a fact until proven otherwise. A good scientist would say "well, sure it totally lacks biologic plausibility but I won't 100% rule it out. I'm not going to spend my grant money chasing it down. But bring my your evidence."
So what are you taking about? I see a lot of hand waving without any good examples. You stated auras. I followed up with some clarifications and questions. You ignored that and returned to your original assumption.
Many claim auras have a measurable effect. Do you agree or disagree? If yes, then it can be tested by science and a good scientist would not reject such a claim. (Do see my note about looking and looking and looking and what becomes the safe money bet.) Is there any good evidence for this effect (tested under proper controlled conditions, with a stage magicians involved in the protocols)? Randi, of course, as $1 million that says if you can show the effect you get the cash.
Define "practical". Science's boundary is if it can be measured objectively, it is amenable to the process of science. What's the issue here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| If you define science as such, then it is what science is to you. Since I argue from a different perspective of science, I would obviously appear ignorant to you. |
You are ignorant. There is only one perspective on what science is; only one scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
(even if you don't like wikipedia, any encyclopedia will say the same thing)
Your posts are not precise; they are rambling nonsense. This was not a discussion. It was biology 101, courtesy of mindmetoo. If you are busy working, at least go to your local community college and enroll in some evening science courses. If you ARE here in Korea, buy Campbell/Reece/Mitchell's book "Biology" (2007) Read it cover to cover, then come back and have a discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I acknowledge your responses. I have no further comment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People who ignorantly identify life and consciousness with matter don't really have a clue what life is, and their material science is essentially negative science - or nescience...
Because God's illusory energy is so much greater than they are, the more they think they are making progress in their exploitation of nature, the further they get from the Ablsolute Truth, and the more implicated they get in the complexities of karma...
Even on a material level. anyone who thinks that there is only one scientific method has a poor fund of knowledge...
"Arjuna's" more broadminded, philosophical approach has no appeal to narrow-minded, hard-core atheists and impersonalists, who are puffed-up with false ego... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| I acknowledge your responses. I have no further comment. |
Can you believe this?
First, arjuna decries the practice of appeal to authority.
Then he tells us that there is scientific evidence for the soul.
Then three of us asked him to elaborate.
We didn't say there WASN'T scientific evidence for the soul,
we merely asked what that evidence was.
Put arjuna's premises together,
and you will find that we shouldn't take him at his word,
we should only ask him for further evidence.
Isn't that exactly what we did?
On the other hand, arjuna also implies that he was so much more qualified than the rest of us and that he was going to grace all of us with his scintillating wisdom.
However, in response to our inquiry, he says, "I acknowledge your responses. I have no further comment."
What he probably means, then, is that we should not appeal to any authority but him.
All right, ED209. All right, mindmetoo.
From this point forward, we shall believe that there is scientific evidence for the soul.
arjuna says so, so it must be true.
Last edited by tomato on Thu May 17, 2007 4:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| narrow-minded, hard-core atheists and impersonalists, who are puffed-up with false ego... |
They won't stay that way forever. The problem is when the person cannot make the transition despite soul's urging because of arrogance and intransigence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, does broad-minded mean uncritical acceptance of whatever your current guru says?
Or does it mean closed-minded like everyone who doesn't see what I see is closed minded? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
