Can you make assumptions in science?
Yes, it was an emotional journey for me too... the kicking and screaming - metaphorically of course. And yet, though we have been on the same journey and arriving at opposite ends of the debate, which of us has been proven to consistently make subjective assumptions?
In my journey, David, the biggest lesson I learned was not about the veracity of the information. It was that I am vulnerable to my own subjectivity. I was not open to being wrong. So in that sense also, you and I have arrived at opposite ends.
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
David I see you appear to be ignoring my request. Can I assume that providing specific evidence which back up your claims is too hard a task for you?
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
In my journey, David, the biggest lesson I learned was not about the veracity of the information. It was that I am vulnerable to my own subjectivity. I was not open to being wrong. So in that sense also, you and I have arrived at opposite ends.
I had been thoroughly saturated in the materialistic sales-pitch all through High School and University doing Physics, chemistry and biology. I knew all the blurb and was an enthusiastic apostle of the nonsense. Then I began to find that the "science" was impossible nonscience concocted to conform to an ideological prejudice.
More below.
Once again.. a similarity of journey.. though I've been on that "more unsociable" "connecting the dots" train now for a dozen years or more. My poor wife...
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
Once again.. a similarity of journey.. though I've been on that "more unsociable" "connecting the dots" train now for a dozen years or more. My poor wife...
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm
There are many things wrong with this argument, and it has been discussed ad infinitum. A summary of the arguments on both sides can be found on the links at www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html. These discussions never seem to involve any numerical calculations. This is unfortunate, since a very simple calculation shows that it is physically impossible for evolution to violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Obviously not "empirical evidence" because I didn't do the experiment under your nose... maybe you should do it yourself.
It reminds me of Julian Huxley when he was selling this fanciful stuff about 100 years ago. He told his audience the infinitesimally small chance/probability/possibility of even one simple protein forming spontaneously in nature and said: “It's impossible! Yet it has happened because here we are!! !” “Science”??! ! Pure nonsense to sell an impossible superstition!
And later the same Huxley, in the preface he wrote to someone else's nonscience book, explained that we must believe this materialistic view because it affords a moral autonomy particularly in matters of sexual morality or ethics. Something that Narrator has tacitly admitted elsewhere in our arguments. Huxley went on to say that Materialism must be “true” because the alternative is “unthinkable”. Woohoo!! ! Nonscience at it's inimitable best!
I was so astonished at Huxley's candour that I transcribed the entire preface by longhand into a notebook about 40 years ago. Needless to say I can't quote directly from it because I wouldn't know where to find it now.
Anyhow, I might find this “discussion” an interesting challenge to see how long I can retain some sanity in a wonderland of unreason, but I've done it several times before so there's no curiosity about what the next challenge or adventure might be... I've seen them all.
I can only hope that if there have been some readers of this exchange with a functional and reasonably analytical mind they might have food for thought and enough links to start their own investigation.
I have better things to take up my time.
Once again.. a similarity of journey.. though I've been on that "more unsociable" "connecting the dots" train now for a dozen years or more. My poor wife...
About the same for me, but the seclusion escalated with the Internet, giving me wonderful access to more than books alone. And it escalated again once I began debating issues online in the late 90's.
Younger folks won't know how different things were before the Internet.
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
It looks like we've got a misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics and an argument from incredulity here (regarding the proteins, etc.).
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
Admitted? You make it sound like a guilty pleasure.
Horse or cart, chicken or egg, what I've "tacitly" and overtly said is that religious morals are a human imposition, a straight jacket of someone else's rules. I also said that when I gave away religion, my beliefs and actions began to have greater moral integrity.
Turning away from religion does not bankrupt anyone's morals or ethics.
Or do you think it does, David?
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
Yes science has a large degree of a human element in it. People aren't perfect therefore science isn't perfect. Of course people will take this and go off on a tangent about how faulty science is. For the most part pure science is a good thing, it's the best way we can understand the physical world. Hopefully one day we can develop objective AI's that can conduct progress for us so it loses its subjective human element.
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
As usual you oversimplify and ignore recent findings
Miller Urey
National centre for science eduaction
As to your question regarding "what evidence will I accept" Simply really. Produce peer reviewed calculations which show the energy throughput from the Sun, the earths core, and the earths rotation are not enough to balance the effect of entropy and therefore prove that evolution could not have occurred.
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
You took me literally. I should have seen that coming.
I didn't mean that any human would extend the Miller-Urey experiment to 4 billion years. I was trying to make an analogy to the actual earth but that didn't come across.
But in a sense....yes. Things that are impossible over years or even centuries or millenia do become possible with much bigger time scales. There is a theme in your dismissals of science (which you call "nom-science" but it isn't). This theme is not appreciating very large scales. Something that is impossible in the time scales of a human life (the time scale of an experiment, including extended experiments ) becomes possible when your time scale is billions of years. Likewise you are not appreciating just how much energy the sun beams to earth.
Turning away from religion does not bankrupt anyone's morals or ethics.
Or do you think it does, David?[/quote] It necessarily reduces morals to a matter of temporary convenience.
"Peer reviewed" "calculations" in this context are only collaborated nonsense designed to fool the most gullible egotists.
But in a sense....yes. Things that are impossible over years or even centuries or millenia do become possible with much bigger time scales. There is a theme in your dismissals of science (which you call "nom-science" but it isn't). This theme is not appreciating very large scales. Something that is impossible in the time scales of a human life (the time scale of an experiment, including extended experiments ) becomes possible when your time scale is billions of years. Likewise you are not appreciating just how much energy the sun beams to earth.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Assumptions |
25 Mar 2024, 11:15 pm |
Best Science Fiction Movies? |
05 Jan 2024, 8:01 pm |
Intelligent design has no place in science classrooms. |
17 Mar 2024, 8:20 pm |
How can i make new friends without failing (if possible) |
29 Feb 2024, 6:25 am |