Evolution and creationism

Great Debates
181

I’ll skip the arguments about the apologizing and confusing and the other tangents at the beginning. But if you are going to claim I’m just “dodging the issue”, then I’ll return to it and post a full rebuttal. Explaining all that is tangent to the other points and is a distraction.

If you post in Latin or Classical Greek, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that you used wrong syntax or misspelled words or try to correct your Latin or Classical Greek. cricetus, on the other hand, having an education in math that doesn’t extend into calculus, felt compelled to tell me I was wrong in my math when he know fuck all about calculus. Your analogy just doesn’t fly.

You know, that is a pretty interesting outlook you have there. Look back in this thread, and other places as well, and you will see over and again people saying, “if ever something comes along which explains the facts better than evolution, is falsifiable, and withstands scrutiny, evolution will be discarded”. And it ain’t just me saying that. Nature’s Call said it in post #78

But to someone like you, Dio, you will never look at the new evidence because to you the game is over.

I can’t. I never claimed I could. If I could, do you think I’d be posting on a message board? I’d be collecting my Noble prize. But just because I can’t do something doesn’t make it impossible. Can you prove isochron dating is valid? By your argument, if you can’t do it, it must not be possible.

Good thing, too, because I never tried to refute evolution. You’ve been reading into this that I’m trying to do that because for some silly reason you think I’m a creationist. I’m begging you to read and understand post 158. Get off the evolution vs. creation debate. I’m not here to debate that with you. This is the point you are spectacularly missing.

I had posted:
critecus was presented with a fact he couldn’t comprehend and which flew in the face of what he understood to be true.

To which you replied:

He said, and I quote:

He clearly was arguing that what I had posted was wrong. It conflicted with what he understood to be true. He was faced with something he didn’t understand, but he tried to make sense of it in a way he thought he did understand and it caused a conflict between what he understood and what was said.

No, actually, it wasn’t a cheap trick. He claimed d(x*x)/dx is not equal to 2x. I explained it to him and showed him a cite for it. He then completely dismissed my explanation and my cite. How is my explaining it to him and giving him a cite a trick and a distraction?

See, you keep wanting this to be me trying to disprove evolution, when in fact I never tried to do any such thing. It is clear you haven’t read post 158, or you’d know this. Or maybe you are giving me another wonderful example of my OP. In this case, your stance is that I’m arguing against evolution. You feel secure in that stance, and will argue it until your face turns blue. Regardless of what evidence is given to you, you will not move from that stance because you are certain you are right.

182

Here is a cite from the rec.puzzles newsgroup. If that doesn’t prove me right, we’ll break out the calculus texts and go through it.

183

Neither your post or your cite said, “OK, this is calculus and “d” refers to the derivative…” It’s just a matter of intellectual honesty to explain upfront what you’re doing. It is certainly poor form to post obscure formulas, link to websites that present the same formulas with no explanatory commentary, and wait for someone to trip up so you can gloat about how you’ve exposed the weakness in their character.

I have never claimed to be perfect. I am still not taking anything on “faith.” Evolution make sense with the information I have, but it’s a working theory, not an article of faith. I will consider each theory as it come down the pipe.

You’ve shown little respect or fair-game-manship in this thread, and I’m leaving it now. Good luck in your future endeavors.

184

I’m not sure why I’m jumping back in here. The cause appears hopeless. However, it seems language (among other things) is getting in the way.

To oversimplify, g_under_p has made a statement: “An evolutionist employs faith; a creationist employs faith; the two are in some way similar.”

This statement has been challenged, and in my mind successfully reduced to a non-point. It is only true if you sufficiently twist the word “faith” enough that the the two are not similar - there is therefore no symmetry. (see post #139)

We got tripped up on, then clarified, the use of the word “faith.” There was also a minor speed bump in the use of the word “creationism.” We briefly discussed the distinction between young-earth, intelligent design, etc.

I want to talk here about the following words: fact, falsifyable, irrefutable, evolution, theory.

It’s a fact that the sun appears to rise in the east, will do so again tomorrow, and this apparent motion is due to the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. An idiot might challenge the word “fact” saying, “Yeah, but what if tomorrow it doesn’t rise in the east.” If anyone reading this cannot get behind the fact that the earth goes around the sun, stop reading now and scratch the word “fact” from your dictionary.

Falsifyable and irrefutable are in no way synonyms. Irrefutable means “the truth of it is so secure that all attempts to prove otherwise will fail.” Falsifyable means there is something about the fact in question that, if this happens that fact is false.

The earth revolves around the sun. This fact is irrefutable, i.e all attempt to prove otherwise will fail. It is also falsifiable. Imagine we observed the sun, after having set in the west, to rise the next morning in the west. This would render false the “fact” that the earth revolves around the sun. Therefore the fact is falsifiable, because if such a thing happens the fact is false. The earth around the sun “fact” allows us to correctly predict where the sun will rise tomorrow. (this is a simplistic example, intended only to be illustrative and brief)

Now the word evolution. Evolution is a fact. Take a breath, let’s see why everyone, yes even a creationist , can say this without shame. First of all what is evolution?

Evolution is a fact - as much of a fact as the earth revolving around the sun. Every aspect of the quoted definition has been observed, set up for falsification, proven. The fact that evolution exists and is occurring right now is irrefutable. Please note, however, what the definition deals with and what it does not!

Evolution does not answer the question “how did life begin?” (abiogenesis) Some other process caused that to occur. It does not address the question “how did the universe come to be?” We’re working on those questions. God, being a handy placeholder for the unknown, can live there comfortably for a while (although his space is getting smaller all the time). So evolution is not mutually exclusive to creationism.

The Catholic church jailed Galileo for saying the earth moved around the sun. They feared that fact challenged their God. They’ve since come to terms with the fact. Evolution is a fact too, and while no one I know of has gone to jail for it yet, creationists are in the process of coming to terms with it too.

Finally the word theory. Some say evolution is “only a theory” as if to suggest that it is merely guesswork. The word theory means

So take the two sets of statements: evolution’s set and creationism’s set. Line’em up. Which ones have been repeatedly tested? Which are widely accepted? Which can be used to make predictions? Once you’ve gone through this exercise, which theory requires faith and which does not require faith?

g_under_p it’s time to shit or get off the pot.

[ul]
[li]Do you agree your “point” is pointless?[/li][li]Can you see that any attempt to put someone here on your hotseat is both unfair and doesn’t prove anything?[/li][li]Will you agree that there is no symmetry between an evolutionist’s “faith” and a creationist’s “faith”?[/li][li]Do you see that despite the fact that you may at one time or another said something true, these truths do not string together in support of anything meaningful, and indeed have been clouded by mistakes?[/li][li]Are you motivated to post because of a hidden creationist agenda, or merely because you need to have someone say “g_under_p is right”?[/li][/ul]

185

It’s not an obscure formula, btw. Anyone who has studied calculus will recognize it immediately. But I don’t know how this evolution discussion became a test of manhood about who knows more about calculus.

Blake: While I agree that DtC went too far in his level of certainty, it’s the OP who is taking the typical creationist’s view of evolution being “only a theory”. Yes, it’s a theory, but a theory backed up by innumerably facts which makes it the best theory we have to fit that data (ie, the facts). Our OP is using the layman’s definition of theory, which is what a scientist calls a “hypothesis”-- ie, an untested theory-- as I’m usre you know.

186

Go back to post 163. You made a statement about the linearity of the derivative function which was false. Your “trick” of showing 1=2, though, does not correctly use the linearity of the derivative function because the summation you gave is not a linear function. That’s an entirely different issue. As I said previously, d(f + g)/dx = df/dx + dg/dx, where f and g are functions of x. Do you disagree?

Now, can we get back to discussing evolution? No, one does not need to disprove all the other hypotheses (they/re not theories, btw) out there in order to prove evolution [by natural selection]. If one wants to displace the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as the accepted explanation, you must show that your hypothesis is testable, that it has been tested, and that it explains all the data better. You also have to be able to use your knew “theory” to make predictions. What predictions does Creationism make that can be verified empirically? None.

187

Post 163 is yours. I never made any statement about the linearity of the derivative. You did. strawman argument if I ever saw one, John. I never said anything about d(f + g)/dx = df/dx + dg/dx. I was talking about derivatives over summations and you changed it to be the d(f + g)/dx.

See the post by Blake about disproving all other hypotheses.

I couldn’t agree more. I always have. I’m not a creationist.

  1. Yep. I put it in MPSIMS to begin with.
  2. What you are calling “putting someone on the hot seat” is me trying to clear up the misconception that my point, however pointless you’ve deemed it to be, is not about evolution. See my next post about this.
  3. I agree there is no symmetry in the way faith is denoted, yes. A creationist must take on faith the very premise of their stance. Hypothetically, an evolution need not do any such thing.
  4. I’m pretty sure that if I can get people for forget evolution and creationism for a moment, they might be able to re-read my posts and find the meaning I was trying to put into them.
  5. I have no motivation about creationism. Is there anyway I can prove that? Or is there just too much water under the bridge at this point?
    Nature’s Call -
    You were quite correct when you said I had two fatal flaws in my OP. They were the fact that I tried to use evolution and creation as the vehicles for demonstration and that I used the word “faith”. Any scientific argument, or any argument with mutually exclusive results would have sufficed.

I’m going to ask you a huge favor. Stick around for just a little longer and see if what I say makes anymore sense. If it doesn’t, well, life goes on. If it makes sense, and is pointless, that’s fine too. But at least if you come to the realization it is pointless you’ll realize I’m not here to try to “trick” anyone into giving creationism an ounce of credit.

188

This is a statement about the linearity of the derivative function:

Do you know what “linearity” means? A function is linear if and only if f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y) and f(ax) = af(x). Your summation is a function of x, and isn’t linear. The derivative function is linear.

Blake is wrong, just as you are, and I’ve already addressed that. Scientists don’t set out to disprove creationism because it can’t be disproved. Creationism is based on a supernatural explanation, and science can only deal with the natural. As soon as you interject God into the equation you take yourself outside the realm of science. It really is that simple.

189

I can use any “debate” to try to highlight my pointless point, but I’m afraid that we will devolve into arguing the debate, not the point I’m trying to make. This is what has happened so far.

Try to forget I ever mentioned evolution and creationism for a moment. Start fresh from this instead.

Take two mutually exclusive hypotheses A and B which are trying to explain C. Fred has taken the position that A is true. Mel has taken the position B is true.

We know ~(A&B) because I just defined it that way.

One, or both, are wrong. C could very well be explained by D, E, F, G or something else entirely. But for now, since we are dealing with just two people, we need only consider the case of ~(A&B).

Fred can conclude Mel is wrong in two ways. He can either prove A or he can prove ~B.

Fred, to his credit, is dead right and Fred never considers B in any way. He doesn’t need to, since A is true.

Why would Mel not look at the reasons A is true and accept the validity of A? Because Mel knows that ~(A&B) means that since B is true, ~A must also be true. He can’t see the fatal flaws, but he is certain they are there.

Mel has logically concluded that A must be false, based on flawless logic. Unfortunately, it is also based on a faulty premise and therefore is wrong.

Fred has logically concluded that B must be false, exactly in the same way B has concluded A is false. Fortunately for Fred, his premise was right.

If you have any problems with the above I can say for certain we will never reach a common point in this discussion.

190

Would it clear things up if I said, instead, that the sum of the differential is not necessarily the same as the differentiation of the sum? That it doesn’t hold if the summation is a function of x and x is integral?

As far as I can tell, we are both saying that the flaw in the 1=2 proof arises from this statement:
d(x + x + x + … + x (x times))/dx = 1 + 1 + 1 + … + 1 (x times) = x.

I said it as quoted above. You seem to be saying it here:

If I understand correctly, you are saying that the proof fails because the summation isn’t linear and therefore you can’t take the derivative over that summation.

191

No, there is nothing wrong with that satement as far as it goes. But you can’t apply it to A = evolution and B = creationism because creationism is not an hypothesis. It might be an “hypothesis” in the layman’s sense of the term, but not in the scientific sense. That is the crux of the disagreement. You are putting the pseudo-hypothesis of creationism on the same level as a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Can we agree on that?

As for the math issue, it makes no sense to compare a mathematical proof with scientific proof. Math is not an empirical science. One doesn’t “prove” a scientific theory in the way one proves a mathetical theorem.

192

Now comes the tough part. Phrasing this in such a way that an argument about the connotations and denotions of the words doesn’t get in the way of my pointless point.

This isn’t about about whether A is correct or B is correct. This is about the human reaction to new information that conflicts with our present understanding of the world.

The human reaction is the same regardless of whether you are Mel or Fred and is based on what you think you know. Mel and Fred, each in their heart of hearts, believe themselves to be correct. Information which is presented that is contrary to their viewpoint is generally automatically assumed to be false while information in support of their viewpoint is automatically assumed to be true. Based on what they assume to be true, this is logical.

And now for my poitnless point:
It is easy to look at someone standing on the other side of an argument, point out a fatal flaw in their argument, and call them ignorant for not seeing the falsity of their stance. “Why don’t they see what I see”, you ask yourself? “They are refusing all logic that is as clear as the nose on their face”, you bellow. You bang your head against the wall trying to convince them you are right, they are wrong and if they only looked they’d see it, too. But the problem is that they are doing the exact same thing. Remember, although they started from a faulty premise, where they went from there was completely logical and completely consistent with how I deal with new information.

193

Ugh, I’ve been making ground, so I hate to argue this. But no, I never put creationism on the same level as a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Hopefully the above post will show what I intended. Namely, I was making the pointless point that creationists are following a logical path in their reasoning about the world in which we live much in the same way evolutionists do. Unfortunately for creationists, they’ve started from the wrong premise and therefore their conclusions and pathway are dead wrong.

I never intended the math issue to be equivalent to creationism/evolution. Instead, I was trying to show that, instead of using Side 1 = evolutionists and Side 2 = creationists, let’s instead use Side 1 = 1=1 and Side 2 = 1=2. I was hoping to get evolution/creation out of the way of the pointless point I was trying to make. Exactly what the two sides of the issue were didn’t matter. What mattered was the reaction to the new information. Everyone else made this into a creation/evolution debate. I stated from the beginning it never was.

194

I disagree. If Mel and Fred are not scientists, then you may be correct. If they are scientists, they do not “automatically” assume anything. In fact, good scientists are always trying to expand knowledge. At it’s most significant, this expansion of knowledge cosists of tearing down old theories and developing new ones that fit the data better. That’s why Einstein made the leap concerning Relativity that he did. Yes, many scientists looked at the data “the speed of light is constant no matter what the reference frame” and thought it was incorrect. Einstein started with the radical assumption of “what if the data is actually correct… what are the implications?” From there, he was able to expand our understanding of the universe by creating an entirely new theory.

No, they are not doing the “exact same thing”. Religion is fine, as far as it goes. But it is not science. And science is not religion. The two are completely different ways of looking at the world. They are not “equivalent”; they are different. When a person tries to inject religion into science, he is simply wrong. And when someone tries to inject science into religion, he is also wrong. The two subjects do not overlap.

I still won’t accept that you are not a creationist until you agree with the statement that creationism is not a scientific hypothesis. If you can’t agree with that, then you have indeed accepted creationism as valid whether you think you have or not.

195

But I think it is wrong to phrase your point–which is something I wonder about myself–without a context.

There are genuine scientific controversies out there. Is our behaviour determined by genes or by environment? Is String Theory really the Theory of Everything? These are points about which there is genuine disagreement. People can get quite heated about these debates, but if they are honest they will have to grant that the opposition has at least some valid arguments.

When we leave science, we can find many debates where Mel or Fred could be in valid disagreement. Abortion is an obvious case. Here the debates center around metaphysical and ethical intuitions. And here is where your point–the acknowledgement of the similarities between your reasoning and the other person’s–is well taken.

However there is also such a thing as well-settled science. While Heliocentrism and the Germ Theory of Disease are falsifiable in a logical sense, in the practical sense the probablity of actually finding falsifying evidence is so miniscule, and the theories have been shown to have so many verifiable consequences, that we can call each theory a fact without hesitation.

The same is true of Evolution. Evolution is a well-settled fact. It’s opponents are dishonest if they claim to be doing science at all. There is simply no real controversy about evolution, just a pseudo-controversy drummed up by people who for some reason or another feel threatened by evolution. Often this seems to be because they are laboring under the false impression that they cannot believe in God and Evolution at the same time.

196

A “pointless point” is probably the best way to describe that.

Here’s the deal. A scientist starts with a hypothesis, a premise, if you will. When he finds data that doesn’t support his hypothesis, he changes the hypothesis. A creationist does no such thing. He doesn’t have to, because God doesn’t have to obey natural laws. “God did it” answers any and all questions.

So, yes, if one starts with a faulty premise, one can procede “logically” from that premise and never notice it. But if one is dealing with the physical world, then it takes intentional ignorance to continue to ignore data which contradicts your premise.

197

Moderator’s Note: Actually, if you had insulted another poster in Great Debates, you would be breaking the rules of this forum. (In fact, this applies to all the forums on the SDMB outside of the BBQ Pit.) Just FYI.

198

I said above:

What more do you need? I’m pleading with you here. Seriously. What can I say or do or not do to convince you this isn’t about evolution and creation and that I’m not a creationist.

Unfortunately, you keep reading things which aren’t there and not reading things which are there. I just can’t help you with that. If you are going to insist I’m a closest creationist, I cannot change your mind. And if you can’t see how that exactly fits the pointless point I’ve been making, well, it is time for me to stop banging my head against the wall.

You know, way back in the beginning I was chastised for insisting that Dio confirm for himself the theory upon which isochron dating is based. And here you are, saying that a good scientist wouldn’t assume anything. Yet many people came to Dio’s defense, saying it is ludicrious to expect that of him. Which is it? Can people assume things or can’t they? In the real world, we have to assume some things because we are just phyiscally incapable of doing all that verificaion on our own.

I really tried to get you to get away from creation/evolution or science/religion. I never once claimed they were equivalent. I claimed the human reaction to new information is equivalent. Sure, a pure, hypothetical scientist wouldn’t take anything for granted and wouldn’t assume anything about the new information. But in the real world, dealing with real people, that just isn’t true.

The problem with leaving science is that the issues then don’t tend to be mutually exclusive. Is abortion wrong vs. is abortion right? Many claim it is wrong… except in the case of saving the mother’s life. It is the “except” that gives it grey and makes it non-exclusive. My pointless point was strictly as it relates to mutually exclusive arguments.

No doubt to all points. I actually couldn’t agree more. I know all this. But it really has nothing to do with my pointless point about what happens, in the real world, once someone has aligned themselves with a certain viewpoint. Evolutionist and creationists alike tend to react much the same way to new information. It is human nature.

In the hypothetical world that is exactly how a scientist would react. But in the real world, as was demonstrated by cricetus and previously by Dio by claiming he doesn’t need to bother looking at any new data, people don’t do that. I even admitted I didn’t do that which is what started all this.We all reach a limit where we just stop looking at the new data because, well, it is just too damn time consumming at times. This is where the pointless point I’ve been making comes into play. A true scientist would consider all information, discarding it or using it as appropriate, but in the real world we apply our biases to the information first. This is completely logical based on where you stand, but it isn’t truly scientific. And worse, it is true for both side of the argument, right or wrong.

199

I stand guilty as charged. It was a subtle dig, as was evidenced by the fact that it whooshed Diogenes. None the less, it was a dig. I apologize to cricetus for doing that, and I will try to keep my digs out of GD in the future.

I looked at is as akin to saying, “You can’t possibly be serious!” and less along the lines of “you are an idiot”. The former I assumed is legitimate here, the latter obviously is not.

200

Well, if you looked at the time marker of those two posts, you could have infered that I was still writing mine when yours was posted. OK, I accept that you aren’t a closet creationist now.

A good scientist would not assume anything about a new piece of data that doesn’t fit the existing theory. That’s different from saying you have to question dating methods every time you run one.

False dichotomy. No one is a “pure rational scientist” in the abstract sense, but that doesn’t make everyone an irrational blob of emotions either. No, we do the best we can, and those of us who are good scientists are rational far more often than we are not. You seem to want to lump everyone into the same category.

I do not agree that “the human reaction to new information is equivalent”. That’s just plain silly. There are plenty of good scientists out there who do not look at each piece of new data with “faith” or with a preconceived conclusion.

Science doesn’t deal in issues of right and wrong. Those are moral decisions. Science can led some data, or can guide the thinking, but ultimate decisions about right and wrong are outside the realm of science.

No, no, no, a thousand times no. A creationist DOES NOT react the same way to new data as a scientist does. The creationist’s answer of “God did it” has never changed since time immemorial. The scientific theory of evolution has evolved (pun intended) over time as new data has become available. How on earth can you say that is equivalent?

Even if you’re right about the two posters you mention, what does that prove? There are 6 billion other people on this planet, and there is no reason to assume that those two are representative.

How do you suppose new scientific theories come about if scientists aren’t willing to jetison the old ones?