Top Ten Reasons Not To Believe In Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution … (Page 4)

MrSteveA67
MrSteveA67: What's interpreted as a contortion or not depends upon how flexible one is. In many ways I'm being extremely rigid and logical. This seems contorted relative to your view but it's actually a rather consistent view from my perspective.

Let me ask you a question - do you believe that gravity should objectively exist for a dead person?

If you say yes, then you're basically saying that your own perceptions and beliefs should be taken as truths for things that (we could assume) don't even have the ability to witness or verify them.

Isn't that much of what the complaints lodged about religions are? A belief that ones own personal perspective of the universe is valid for everyone else? (Actually, I'd tend to say that more spiritual views tend to be better able to recognize that not everything necessarily sees things the same way)

If someone came up and told you God exists and they personal evidence or knowledge of this, should you believe them simply because of the claim? For what purpose or what would it mean to accept some blind faith like that?

In a similar sense, if someone says that such and such occured millions of years ago yet they can't provide any way to show you how things actually were millions of years ago or you have reasons to believe that alternatives are possible, then what reason would there be to take that as a literal truth ... who here was actually around millions of years ago? People are simply extrapolating evidence presently available to them along a past timeline of assumed cause and effect to estimate properties that could have existed in the past, but that doesn't mean this is something that was ever literally true.

As an example, I've generated some nice artwork on computers and some of the algorithms might take days to run to generate an image. I could print something out and hang it on a wall. If someone later came by and solely looked at the picture on the wall and attempted to determine how it was created they might, for example, witness that dust slowly collects on it. Someone might then estimate the thickness of the paint and the rate at which dust collects and make a guess at the amount of time it took for that image to have been created ... the problem is that those two processes aren't directly related.

I'm not saying that there isn't value to science and evolutionary theories etc., but that if someone is really trying to see the "big picture", it can include more than what's immediately visible inside the picture frame.

I think the universe is capable of integrating quite a bit of diversity and complexity ... and I'm rather certain it even extends to things that are for most all intents and purposes, mind boggling. On the other hand, that's not necessarily what's important. The most significant aspect is just that one finds the value in it ... simple or complex doesn't really matter though I think time tends to always "complexify" things!

Again, I'm just tossing out thoughts to consider. Have fun
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Sigh ...

Why I'm even bothering I don't know ...

"do you believe that gravity should objectively exist for a dead person?"

Frankly, this is a pointless question. But I'll give it a go.

The guy is dead. His body is an inanimate object. It has no life, hence no ability to think, hence no point of view. Hence, the idea of gravity, the subjectivity or objectivity of gravity, from its perspective is pointless.

It makes no more sense than wondering if my toilet's perspective on gravity is subjective or objective.
13 years ago Report
0
MrSteveA67
MrSteveA67: Yes, I think we see it similarly, Sixties. In the end, the most reliable form of experience or truth is simply ones own ... if someone said a ball rolled from point A to point B, but you see it at B, the most accurate description is simply that of the experience itself - someone 'told' you that the ball rolled from A to B, but that you see it at B ... whether or not it really did roll from A to B involves speculation.

Along the same lines as my example of expecting a dead person to recognize gravity as objectively existing, if someone is blind and you tried to show them light exists, it would really require some element of pure faith by that person to believe in light and if we're not trying to encourage people having such blind faith in unverifiable/intangible things then we shouldn't expect a blind person to say that light exists.

Even if you read the person a college textbook on optics as say that proves light exists, it wouldn't really matter. Someone could similarly read a Bible and say that's proof of such and such as well ... what are all these things really? I think they're best seen as just information (including varied claims of veracity).

People have different perspectives and unique ways of observing and understanding things and these might differ more than is immediately apparent. If someone wants a singular truth though, then it would appear unavoidable that there's only one place it could ever be found ... I'll let you see if you can figure out where such a singular truth would have to lie, if it exists.

(HINT: Imagine if everyone believed truth was defined by others and noone knew it themself ... people could go around asking everyone else and never find it anywhere. I'm not trying to say there is just a singular truth but that if there was, I don't see how it would be possible that anything 'else'/other/external could define it unless it was simply left as an unknown)
13 years ago Report
0
MrSteveA67
MrSteveA67: Maybe a better simplification to all this is to consider that one version of history doesn't necessarily deny other aspects being true as well. It's possible it's not an either/or scenario ... it simply depends upon what things can exist compatibly together.

In Los Angeles, we've got many people from different histories and backgrounds. If someone says that the past was solely Europe, Mexico or America etc. or their own particular family history, then that's a potentially rather narrow minded perspective and could be missing a larger picture. Similar properties could be present in the universe and not necessarily cause any logical paradoxes/conflicts.

I have little doubt there's still plenty of learning left and that it hasn't all been seen already.
13 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: And I'm lost. What the f~z$ are you talking about Steve? What does the concepts of subjective/objective have to do with evolution?

It seems you wish to lose the topic by reducing the question "Is Evolution True?" to a unrelated question; "what is truth?". And the philosophical question, while important, clearly is off topic. Why not make a topic for that?

*******-*******-

>>>To believe...or not to believe...???????????

I do not believe. I examine. I do not expect a book written 3000 years before science to contain any scientific facts. And I do not object to scientifically derived facts based on the so called "truths" that seem to contradict how the world works.

If the bible were to say that sand should work as gas, I do not expect people to blindly pour sand in their tanks. I treat evolution with the same conviction; people should not ignorantly pretend that such a book has all the answers. It cannot.
13 years ago Report
0
_Nicotina_
_Nicotina_: Seems like we are onto the subject of relativity.
13 years ago Report
0
MrSteveA67
MrSteveA67: I don't think my comments were completely off, Lipton. Recognize that the Theory of Evolution requires a belief in a past with various pieces of evidence available and in a similar sense, we could look at various religious documents (Ok, yes, I'm thinking of the Bible in particular ) and see it also provides various pieces of evidence about the past.

In the Theory of Evolution we can trace events in terms of various causes and effects over time and see them as potentially leading to 'how things are today'.

In a similar sense, someone could read the Bible and decide that it similarly gives some plausible background history that could have led also led to 'things as they are today'.

Of course this could be said of most anything that didn't have some obviously impossible paradox or immediately obvious conflict with things presently.

The reason why views of subjectivity and objectivity are so relevant is that the objective view implies a singular truth. If we believe that all things are perceived identically for everything then this is a belief in a singular objective reality. If the influences of subjectivity are recognized, then it becomes clearer that disagreements between observations don't necessarily mean that one thing is false, it simply means that not everything can be objectively communicated and I showed some examples of this.

I think much of the arguments arise over assumptions that are made that might be entirely arbitrary and unjustified.

What's the real issue anyway? What's the motivation behind the debate? I think it's simply that people tend to assume that time is like a singular line and what happened in the past determines properties of how things unfold into the future (and to a limited extent I agree).

So in one case the belief is that some unknown evolutionary ideal is at work behind the scenes prodding life along and the other view is that there's a creative intelligence behind it (It would be ironic (paradoxical?) to attempt to disprove the possible existence of such a creative intelligence by using the same ... the closest thing to a disproof seems to simply leave it as an unknown) and it's assumed that past conditions determine the future. Well if that's true, then there's no reason for any debate. It won't change anything. Whatever runs the shows would continue to.

On the other hand, consider that we don't have infinite visibility into the past or future but instead just a finite and limited view. If time is infinite (it seems impossible to be finite) then that means every moment potentially diverges into many possibilities ... which possibilities are realized? Well if you're of a religious bent, then you might already have some ideas. Notice that free will also implies that one is not 'chained' to everyone else and one reaps ones own rewards.

If, for example, one decided to attempt to create agreement between others with regard to historical timelines, then that desire or application of will would naturally result in what? It would appear to naturally result in being effectively chained to a democratic process determined by opinions of others ... that might be a state of questionable value. On the other hand, with a recognition of finite limits and only subjective views available, there comes a realization of many degrees of freedom as well.

I don't think there's actually a specific 'correct' answer, but consider this. If you read the Bible, do you believe it's intended to be something that only has some singular meaning defined by some "objective past" or "the rest of the universe" (as defined by discussion with others) or do you see its value as something that is personally determined? Do you believe you have any freedom in how you interpret the Bible or how you act relative to whatever information you derive from it? If you believe in such freedom, then how would it be reflected in life? Recognize that this applies to other things in life too.
13 years ago Report
0
MrSteveA67
MrSteveA67: There's no way to demonstrably prove that these degrees of freedom exist because there's only one present moment and there's no way to directly show what alternatives could have existed except via speculation (relative to ones own beliefs of cause and effect or 'how things work'.

In that sense, there's no way to prove that there can be more than a single timeline. What happens, happens. Any evidence of additional degrees of freedom in spacetime is something that can only be verified for oneself, but if a belief in free will exists, then this would seem to also imply that things are not chained to each other and nothing 'drags' anything else around. It's the beliefs that determine the context and decisions and actions that determine where one heads.

So what happened millions of years ago? A good question is over what reference for time is being used (at a minimum, there's obvious evidence that consciously experienced versions of time compared to that of a physical clock aren't 1 to 1 matches and a good example is when someone's sleeping, though the Theory of Relativity shows similar observations as time dilation). Which version of time is most significant?

Ok, I'll leave you guys to continue on as you're right, my comments regard many things outside the intended subject of debate and I shouldn't distract things too much.

Have fun.
13 years ago Report
0
oh_good_laughs
oh_good_laughs: Yes, Steve. It seems both views are used with a little faith.
13 years ago Report
0
SPIRIT-ONE
SPIRIT-ONE: Steve ,interesting comments ,Keep them coming 'free thinker'
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Steve is basically jerking off verbally. Your long, tiring, pseudo-intellectual posts all basically boil down to one concept, which you keep spinning endless variations of:

Perception.

And as you ignored before, in science, subjectivity, personal perception, is peeled away by peer review and repetiton of observation and experimentation.

It's not just one person perceving something subjectively. It's a huge, and constantly growing collection of many people perceiving the same phenonenon objectively.

Typing huge volumes of unrelated balderdash does not a good argument make. The thing about jerking off, verbally or otherwise, is that it's essentially done for the self.
13 years ago Report
0
oh_good_laughs
oh_good_laughs: Sits - "It's not just one person perceving something subjectively. It's a huge, and constantly growing collection of many people perceiving the same phenonenon objectively."

I disagree with this. People aren't recreating the wheel here. People are taught the perception of Evolution, then choose whether to believe in it. In many cases dealing with the teaching of Evolution, some people will demonstrate this opinion as fact, then mock whoever disagrees with it.. sort-of an irony.
13 years ago Report
0
MrSteveA67
MrSteveA67: I'm glad some things 'clicked' for you guys and as Sixties appears to agree with, reality is something for which disagreement between people could at least appear to exist and I agree that perception is something foundational to what's involved and to see it clearly a firm foundation needs to be used.

If we're working with concepts that can be whimsically redefined or truths that continually lie somewhere beyond an unknown horizon then truth is basically being predetermined to be whimsical or unknown.

The only way for me to have a firm foundation for truth is to simply use one (I assume the same would be true for anyone else - the concepts one builds are no more stable than the stability of whatever memory or principles are used to construct them. Effectively every physical theorist begins with the implicit assumption that their own thought processes, memories, memory, experiences and intelligence etc. are not false, otherwise if you began with an uncertainty regarding your own memory and reasoning etc., then there would never be a hope of deriving anything with certainty from that).

So what would be a very logical/scientific view of diverse possible perceptions?

To show an example of how the discrepancies appear to arise, consider if two people were driving down a rode and someone saw a house on the side of the rode in the distance and then turned around and went back, whereas the other person continued to drive and upon passing by closer recognized that it was a real estate sign and not a "real" house.

If there's a singular truth about this, what is it (other than it's a thought experiment that I created ... which is really the most accurate description )?

Was the house real or a sign? If we were to expect the person who saw it as a real house to instead disbelieve their experiences and believe it was just a sign, then this would seem to require that we expect people should believe in things that can't be witnessed. Is that a view that science is a proponent of or should we expect science to require an ability to observe and verify things?

If we expect science to include such things as observations, verifications and tests, then it would appear science would represent the subjective view that each had. In the case of the person who turned back early, the "scientific view" would be that it was a real house and to the person who drove past and saw it as a sign, the "scientific view" would once again be "just the facts" as they say.

There's just one reality experienced and that's ones own. That same reality can contain appearances of disagreements ... fundamentally though there is no such disagreement and it all fits in fine.

The most accurate view appears to be when claims of truths or falsehoods are taken as simply "yet more stuff to consider ..." and then piecing things together into a picture that makes sense for oneself. In that case, it can become apparent that people enjoy playing games

Thanks for the chat, guys.
13 years ago Report
0
_Nicotina_
_Nicotina_: Einstein, oh Einstein. Wherefor art thou Einstein?
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Risen, you apparently don't understand science works.

Just because someone is a scientist, makes an observation, and presents it doesn't mean it's accepted as fact, particularly if it's something new or revolutionary. It only gains objectivity and acceptance upon a long, agonizing, entirely skeptical process of peer review, replication, and variation. If a new idea stands up to the rigors of such examination, then, and only then, is it accepted.

And, of course, because science isn't dogma, if someone can come along with a new idea that disproves it, the new idea will prevail ...

... providing, of course, that it withstands the same intellectual process.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: MrSteve, it takes a lot of effort to provoke me ...

... but you're an ass.

Your tactic of spewing forth pages of pointless drivel in lieu of a real argument, particularly when used to the extent that you use this tactic, is dishonest.

It's much like the argument of the religious fanatic that says, "If you haven't read and studied my religious text as much as I have, then your opinion isn't as worthy as mine.

You fill your posts with paragraph after paragraph of pointless, unrelated, irrelevant, philosophically pointless drivel, as if one is expected to expend the energy to reply to all of that drivel.

I'll issue a challenge to you:

Can you take all of that fluff of yours, condense it down to a concise, relatively short argument, say something that takes up no more page space than this post you're reading, something small enough for me to put the tip of my index finger on the top line, and reach the bottom with my thumb?
13 years ago Report
0
MrSteveA67
MrSteveA67: My comments were aimed at showing areas which things that are claimed to be scientific aren't very representative of the ideals.

My ideas on 'how it all works' are founded upon emotions and your comments fall right in line and though I recognize you're not necessarily familiar with many of the background assumptions I've been working with, still my comments have a lot of logic and precision behind them.

I agree that emotional responses are fine too, but in terms of physical theories of how things can exist together in a common space, I don't think emotional appeals alone are sufficient to get it off the ground.

We've all got our views, and I don't believe there's any reason someone should feel obligated to try to defend what reality is ... it's not going anywhere and noone's going to be violating any rules that might be involved.

I'm certain you'd recognize how funny it would be if two different religious groups felt a need to go fight with each other to defend the supremity of some assumed all powerful entity ... can you see the similarly in feeling like the Theory of Evolution must be defended? Do you seriously belief that others beliefs could alter the state of anything? If so, then what would that imply?

Reality is nothing other than what it appears to be. Cool, huh?

Look at most modern physical theories that use 4+ dimensions of space(time). In all those theories, if the dimension of time was potentially infinite in length, that means that you have the equivalent of a potentially infinite number of moments existing simultaineously "Here and Now" and the present is the intersection of many possible past and future "time lines".

That might seem difficult to believe but consider that we might call the body a singular thing, but it's actually composed of many cells working together. The same is true of perceptions in an experience - if you look at a picture, you're not seeing a single point but many things simultaineously.

I've already shown ways in which conscious time and physical times do not match ... I'd assume if I timed you on how closely you could estimate a minute duration of time not only would it be off by likely at least a few seconds but it would vary as well. This agrees with my theory that memory and consciousness act similar to a creativity energy navigating through spacetime (and yes, there are reasons why any form of controllable motions would have some laws/rules involved. For example, if you want to maintain some landmark, you have to move in a manner related to it).

Theories in quantum mechanics have suggested similar things as well and I tend to use the parallel worlds explanation as it seems most intuitive (but all the theories are actually describing the same thing ... different words and manners of expressing them, but fundamentally the same structure).

Where does the past lie? It exists in memory and isn't a physical object that can be shown. It appears impossible for physical science to prove otherwise.

So if you have multiple pathways in time intersecting at the present and physical units of time and conscious units of time aren't identical, then this should immediately imply that if someone says something happened "millions of years ago" and one didn't happen to personally have a chance to witness this, then the reference is not to the same form of time that's consciously experienced.

I don't doubt that there could have been an evolution of life on Earth for millions of years, but that's simply one possibility out of potentially many. So maybe the best way to say it is that the Theory of Evolution is one explanation that could lie next to many others.

Anyway, I realize you might feel motivated to defend or deny various perspectives of reality, but again, I don't think there's actually much need to and in many ways everyone already knows exactly what reality is. It's not like we're violating reality ... are we?! LOL

Thanks for the fun!
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: I no longer read your posts.
13 years ago Report
0
MrSteveA67
MrSteveA67: That's ok. I understand and still appreciate having had the chat. Hopefully you at least got some entertainment out of it, and maybe a little more.
13 years ago Report
0
_Nicotina_
_Nicotina_: Speaking of spacetime
Zoooooooooooom.......... right past string theory and onto M theory.
13 years ago Report
0
MrSteveA67
MrSteveA67: Cute

Yes, why not move things out of the realm of abstract theories of spacetime and apply it to something more significant?

In that sense, it's silly having the same stereotypical discussions about what things might have been like millions of years ago in units of time we can't even measure ... I'm more interested in turning on the disco lights in the future! Now there's a target in spacetime worth aiming for.

See ya at the party!
13 years ago Report
0
MrSteveA67
MrSteveA67: Oops, my last reply was meant to a different comment ... oh well, looks like my 'aim' is still off. Well, I guess that's what keeps life fun (or maybe you edited the post? It still seems to be of a similar flavor)
13 years ago Report
0
_Nicotina_
_Nicotina_: With all the talk about different timelines and dimensions, M theory is too far of a jump. After all, it was you who brought up the topic of multidimensional "reality".

If I had edited the post, it would say so.
Look down there.
|
|
V
13 years ago Report
0
_Nicotina_
_Nicotina_: Oh, I see that you are familiar with the edit process. nvm
Disco?
13 years ago Report
0
oh_good_laughs
oh_good_laughs: Sits, i do understand the process of science. But please remember, what happened millions of years ago is rather off-limits for us to confidently prove or disprove. The evidence for something dated that far back is very indirect, therefore never really considered 'true science'.


But in a hypothetical sense, just for the sake of this discussion, i will bring up an interesting counter-argument i've read against the theory of Evolution.. The ideal of Darwin, the idea of natural selection, is an 'all for one' philosophy for any animal. An animal will do whatever it has to in order to continue the lineage, this is Darwin's 'must' for the concept of Evolution..

Now, what defies Darwin's idea, is altruism. Altruism is something i'm sure all of us have witnessed, in animals as well as ourselves. This is fatally contrary to the understanding of Evolution.
13 years ago Report
0