Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10146283 -

zouden said:
But "evolution" is not the same as "change".


I never indicated that evolution was the same as change; what is central to my argument is that change is essential to evolution.

Quote:
Evolution is not a philosophy. It's an explanation for an observation.


This is a joke right? Obviously an appeal to authority? Who determines where philosophical discourse extends and does not? While I agree that evolution may be considered as a scientific explanation, I also wouldn't limit it to this. 

Explanation is imposing context upon something that simply is occurring. For instance, I might reasonably say that "we are evolving", yet I do not know into what we are evolving. This is closer to what evolution actually is, because it is simply a process. But you would say this is simply wrong? Perhaps we came to this realization through understanding, but this is certainly not evolution itself.

Quote:
>and I think the rhetoric in my first few posts should be self explanatory

It isn't.


Well, maybe you are forgetting the role of readers comprehension. Otherwise, all you have to do is point out the fallacy, or ask for clarification.


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
    #10146305 -

I've been asking for clarification, but getting very little. I don't believe you are committing any fallacies. I just think you could do a better job at explaining your thoughts.

I've got an IQ of 130-something and I can honestly say I have no fucking clue what you're talking about :confused:

If I don't respond, it's because I'm heading out to a rave. Happy easter everyone! :cheers:


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10146312 -

Old post, and I may be taking him out of context, but this seems pretty close to what I am trying to say:

redgreenvines said:
many people think that this is evolution -- or at least the short end of it



that is pretty supremacist.


evolution is a bit more like this...




all of what is is the results of evolution, not just the handsome and clever most human looking thing.
everything that exists on this earth is evolved equally.

but just like guns, they let anyone who can spell use the word any way they like.




--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: daytripper23]
    #10146318 -

One is a diagram of the evolution of man. The other is the evolution of a whole lot of different organisms, including man. So?

Are you surprised that there's so much emphasis put on human evolution?


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10146459 -

zouden said:
One is a diagram of the evolution of man. The other is the evolution of a whole lot of different organisms, including man. So?

Are you surprised that there's so much emphasis put on human evolution?


The evolution of man didn't occur in a line, but in a tree-like structure with many branches. All evolution occurs in this way.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
    #10147214 -

zouden said:
>and I think the rhetoric in my first few posts should be self explanatory

It isn't.


But what if one believes hard enough?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Zanthius]
    #10147255 -

Where does this creature fit on the chart? :albundy:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10147285 -

what's an interesting thought is that... accepting evolution to it's full extent (ala life originated from single cell organisms) implies the same DNA has been alive this entire time, mutating and splitting...


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: deff]
    #10147342 -

We are but servants of this serpentine molecule. I think we should revolt.


I thought this archival gem might be relevant:

-excerpt from "AutoBiography of a Swami"-

One of my more powerful drugs experiences took place with my ex-fiance, Ramona, almost 20 years ago. She was a conservative, Hispanic Roman Catholic and drugs were not part of her world and I was her first lover.

I dropped some powerful acid and we started to make love. (She was quite sober. I often wonder how it would have been had we both been tripping.) At first it was amazingly erotic, but without the usual pesky urge to explode-on-contact. (In fact, as others may tell you, a man can last as long as he wants to while tripping without being desensitized like on alcohol.) Then the entire experience changed to an incredibly, amazing journey into the time-stream of life. With each thrust, I could see all the cycles of the universe; stars being born and dying, electrons circling nuclei, the seasons and rhythms of change. Even weirder was that I became/saw my ancestors mating all the way back, regressing to simpler and simpler lifeforms to the primordial soup; even unto the Original Source. (Sorry, I am NOT going to spoil the mystery for you guys!) It was an infinite mirror regression of all the copulating it took for me to arrive on the planet. It was humbling and yet overwhelming and I truly realized (not merely intellectually) that I am just a channel for the force of Life.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10147393 -

It's interesting that you should use the term, 'serpentine molecule' and then proceed to cite the sexual exploits of the Swami...  I have a headache from the visualization.


--------------------

And as things fell apart,
Nobody paid much attention...
- David Byrne, '(Nothing But) Flowers' from the Talking Heads' album, 'Naked'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10147400 -

must have been some good acid

it's interesting to think how a molecule could rearrange perceptual frameworks to allow such an insight

though one could take the stand it was all self manifested from your own understanding of biology (now applied in real time)

still a powerful molecule :grin:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: deff]
    #10149176 -

Noteworthy said:
I think the biggest problem in this debate is the fact that the bible says that god created the world in a week and that was about 6000 years ago. Evolution says something very different. IT is possible to believe in both evolution and spiritual sense of a higher being, a creator. But evolution + religion? well there dont really seem to be many western religions that are compatible with evolution atm.

I dont see why no one has started an international church for people who believe in God but cannot come to grips with scriptures. The church could involve discussion as to what God really is and what he means to people. Maybe some ppl have tried and its not picked up? I dunno.. seems like the right thing to do.. A lot of people feel like there is a higher power at work but have trouble dealing with this because they think that they have to 'chose' a religion.

Doesnt the whole notion of following a religion seem disgusting? You KNOW that most people on earth have a different religion and that they believe it for the same reasons that you do (you were taught it by someone) and that their religion has the same evidence as yours (old stories).. but.. you still convict to your own religion? In today's world this seems really horrible.. and I dont think we should stand for it.

But no one is there, willing to help find GOD in todays world, as opposed to in the ancient world of scriptures. No one is willing to look for god withOUT initial assumptions as to what God is. Some will say - thats because GOD doesnt exist!

But I am not willing to say this, because I want to find a way of understanding the world that any person can assent to, even people with an emotional conviction in God (almost all exhibitions of 'human intelligence' have occured in people who believed in god.. so I think any attempt to seek greater understanding should be something that even the believers can agree with)



thats pretty deep
you should read a little about unitarian universalism
here are the first two sentences wikipedia has to say about it

"Unitarian Universalism (UUism) is a theologically liberal religion characterized by its support for a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." Unitarian Universalists do not share a creed; rather, they are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. "


--------------------

"i know not with what weapons world war three with be fought, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones."  -albert einstein


Ran-D said:  "Are you ever not hunting somewhere awesome? :shakefist:"

Alan Rockefeller said:  "No.
I have my priorities straight. 
Most people have their priorities totally jacked up and aren't usually hunting for mushrooms.
I don't know what to say to these guys, I am just like....Umm...you are fucked."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: deff]
    #10149183 -

daytripper>The theory of evolution extends "beyond" any defining cause, or rather, it does not choose to assume of one. You might say that it is infinite in scope, while science is finite (within margins). Simplified way of looking at this difference, is that evolution is a step back from science, in that it is merely considered a series of effects, without addressing cause


how about this for cause: Natural Selection


--------------------

"i know not with what weapons world war three with be fought, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones."  -albert einstein


Ran-D said:  "Are you ever not hunting somewhere awesome? :shakefist:"

Alan Rockefeller said:  "No.
I have my priorities straight. 
Most people have their priorities totally jacked up and aren't usually hunting for mushrooms.
I don't know what to say to these guys, I am just like....Umm...you are fucked."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: adamlivesinCA]
    #10151318 -

Coincidence is a mathematical term and the possibility of an event's occurrence can be calculated using the mathematics of probability.

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 1010123. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility.

THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM

        10000000000000000000000000000000
        00000000000000000000000000000000
        00000000000000000000000000000000
10      00000000000000000000000000000000



Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?

Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.

It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.

Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:

This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a "product of coincidences" one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of God's existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs.

References:* Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9
source




I always thought it was mathematically impossible for there NOT to be more life in the universe... is this bullshit?


--------------------

Sid and Mr. Madhat <part one> A story by Cubie P. Cubensis
<> I WANNA SMOKE THIS BOWL <> <A comic by Cubie P. Cubensis>

Edited by Cubie (04/12/09 10:49 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
    #10151333 -

Quote:
THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM



The probability is exactly 1:1 or 100%. No amount of hand-waving can change that fact.

Next!


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10151515 -

lol, good one.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #10151520 -

was that a jedi joke :nono:


--------------------

Sid and Mr. Madhat <part one> A story by Cubie P. Cubensis
<> I WANNA SMOKE THIS BOWL <> <A comic by Cubie P. Cubensis>

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
    #10154180 -

But it's true. The odds of us being here is 100%, because if we weren't here we wouldn't be able to calculate the odds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Cubie]
    #10154399 -

i'm necessarily saying that i believe in aliens :tinfoil: i'm just speaking hypothetically.

so from what i understand you're basically saying that our own existence is incomprehensibly improbable because the probability of the conditions we are adapted to live in actually existing in our universe is essentially zero. 

so math says we cant exist and neither can our earth.  but we do exist. we are the 1 out of <insert incomprehensibly large number> of possibilities that resulted in conditions we have on earth and produced the life we have on earth.
this math simply implies that there cannot exist another form of life that has adapted to the exact conditions that exist in the place where we do. because those conditions will not be repeated.  just as i cannot have a thumbprint exactly exactly like yours. but does that mean that you do not also have a thumbprint?  in an infinitely large universe with no two planets exactly alike can life not have formed under some different set of conditions?


--------------------

"i know not with what weapons world war three with be fought, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones."  -albert einstein


Ran-D said:  "Are you ever not hunting somewhere awesome? :shakefist:"

Alan Rockefeller said:  "No.
I have my priorities straight. 
Most people have their priorities totally jacked up and aren't usually hunting for mushrooms.
I don't know what to say to these guys, I am just like....Umm...you are fucked."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: adamlivesinCA]
    #10154853 -

math doesn't show what was claimed, most likely, as by the description it may have been fallacious reasoning.


Roll a marble down the hall and record its position vs time with very percise instruments.  Looking back at its path you could calculate what the chance is that such a path would be taken and be shocked to find that your ver percise measurements mean the chances were astronomical that the exact path was taken.  OMG!  And yet it was just rolling  a marble down the hall, what's so improbable?  Nothing, its a texas sharpshooter fallacy


Just like calculating the chance that we came to be.  Unless you know what conditions are neccesary for life, which we don't, and what are neccesary for our life to have evolved, and can quantify the probabilities, you are neccesarily looking back in time just like the marble and saying "that path was unlikely" when you don't realize that just like the hall where the marble could have arrived at the end location by any number of paths so could we have evolved or life began or  whatever by alternate paths.  That we don't know how to quantify or discover these alternate paths means the retrospective calculations of the sort that seems to have been done here is nonsense. 



(I don't know what was actually done though, so just a caution, maybe the calculations were done validly)


But basically i cannot understand why folks do these god arguments with scientific data.  While I'm guilty of believing in god in part because of these kinds of issues, its not like its a valid logical or scientific argument- its nonsense.  You cannot argue the existance or lack of existance of an ill defined supernatural being- its totally pointless whether you are trying to argue its existance or not as by definition it is supernatural and thus your observations and calcualtions are utterly worthless.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* No Evolution threads allowed.
( 1 2 all )		 sir tripsalot 3,587 29 10/04/02 11:50 PM
by Anonymous
* The Idea of Evolution is BS
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 World Spirit 19,625 165 07/21/02 09:44 AM
by whiterastahippie
* Post deleted by Anno Anonymous 1,265 12 03/18/04 03:30 PM
by silversoul7
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Anonymous 4,746 64 01/30/03 06:45 AM
by Teragon
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 9,372 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Evolution Of Humans
( 1 2 all )		 superfine 2,151 23 04/21/03 05:11 PM
by pattern
* What is a "theory"? Anonymous 681 5 01/15/04 07:22 AM
by anarchyhollow
* Creationism / Evolution
( 1 2 all )		 angryshroom 2,653 23 11/11/03 06:29 AM
by StrangeDays

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
14,516 topic views. 0 members, 239 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.