Not having an extensive background in biology, I will freely admit that you have more technical knowledge in the area than I do. I may well not have understood all your terminology, but your attempt to use that as proof that you are right and I am wrong weakens your case. I don’t think the basic problems are hard to see at all. If all you can do is try to bury me in terminology or claim to be right based on your advanced scientific education in this one area, I think you don’t have a strong argument. If you are hung up on credentials, I’ll provide them for the authors of the link I provided: Brad Harrub holds an earned B.S. degree in biology from Kentucky Wesleyan College, and an earned Ph.D. in neurobiology and anatomy from the College of Medicine at the University of Tennessee in Memphis. He is a member of the Society for Neuroscience, and was listed in the 2001-2002 edition of Who's Who Among Scientists and Researchers. Bert Thompson is a graduate of Abilene Christian University, where he earned a B.S. degree in biology. He also is a graduate of Texas A&M University, where he earned both M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in microbiology. These are better credentials than yours on the subject, I presume? Does this mean they are right and you are wrong? Good grief. What a pansy ass excuse. And the scientific proof of the Big Bang is rock solid, and has no unexplained antecedents?!?! ROTFLMAO!!!! Congratulations! I think that’s the first time I’ve used that acronym!! The Big Bang is, of course, a loose theory at best, with mammoth holes in it, and I don’t know any scientist who wouldn’t admit that. Your faith in humanism is strong. I’ll give you that. The question is, have you read anything I’ve presented? I just presented you with a pile of serious questions about evolution, (by people with better credentials than yours since that seems to be one of your crutches), and you haven’t even addressed it. How scientific is that? Your open scientific mind doesn’t seem very open. Um… what are you talking about? The “building blocks” comment related to the creation of the first matter. You are paying attention, aren’t you? Lol! I need to leave you alone on this one now. It’s clear I’m messing with your faith and I’m not going to get anywhere with you this way. If all you have on evolution rests on the certainty of the Big Bang theory, then you’re on very shaky ground my friend. No wonder you seem so nervous. I’m thinking you haven’t had your logic crash yet. Truthfully, I might have been taking a similar stance to yours a number of years ago (although I hope I wasn’t quite as arrogant. It doesn’t look good on you Achebe.) Once you get to a point where you understand that logic doesn’t explain all you’ll become open to some newer ideas. You won’t work so hard to try to illogically stuff facts into logical boxes that don’t fit them. It’s fairly transparent compensating behaviour Jeff. It’s because he knows I have a point but can’t deal with it. That’s fine. If that’s where he’s at, that where he’s at. I probably provoked a bit too much on this. He’s also a pure scientist with a big ego. Applied guys like myself tend not to have egos like that, because as soon as we get too proud, something falls down. (Gives the phrase, “pride comes before the fall" new meaning, eh? ) This is readily apparent from his posts Jeff. He’s a very smart guy, as in he probably has an obscene IQ, but therein lies part of the problem. IQ does not equal wisdom. He’s a very advanced technical thinker, but not a complex thinker. When confronted with something that challenges his worldview, he blathers and sputters rather than considering the point. (See the Kuhn piece, and Torbert’s Developmental Frames, particularly the Expert frame.) And he’ll have to get the last word in too, so expect more blathering and sputtering.
Wow, you guys post fast. No offence Achebe, but your response to this issue is not scientific. You are steeped in a dogma that you won’t dare to step outside of. You’ll go to great, illogical ends to stay inside the box. You prove Kuhn’s point perfectly. Science and faith go to the same conclusions, if you honestly pursue them, IMO. Desperately hanging onto the Big Bang theory, or evolution, is not scientific. It’s a desperate attempt to give yourself something to believe, not unlike people who cling to religion without thinking about it, thus denying science. Both extremes are wrong, IMO. The truth is a whole that encompasses both. Jeff: Congrats on 12000! Fitting that it should be in the midst of a spiritual discussion. Makes me think back to all the previous discussions, heated and otherwise, in this crazy little community. You in Houston. Achebe in Utah. Me in Calgary. Somewhat mind boggling, eh? I hope somebody is taking some notes on this CC.net thing. There is probably a sociology Ph.D. thesis in here somewhere.
Here are a last few words for you, Grizzled (honestly, last words rhetoric *sigh*, I'm glad that we could have an honest debate )... I have shot down your concerns have I not? You claimed that abiogenesis is theoretically unlikely. It has occurred in the lab... repeatedly. You claimed that 'vertical evolution' has never occurred. It has been empirically observed ad nauseum. Please address these points. Explain to me where I have failed in our conversation. Do I honestly give a crap about credentials? I ridicule myself every moment that I have. Are you so dismissive of science that you aren't well versed in, as to write off my arguments as to my ego? Give me a ****ing break. Those people you cite have attained greatness that I will never attain if I constantly get sucked into these conversations where you simply know, *magically* something that I don't. Who is begging the question here? You have observed God, I haven't. I envy you. I just have my eyes and logic to go off of... you have deep felt conviction. That empowers you in a way that I am simply not equipped. If you want to deal with a single point that I've presented, then we'll have a conversation. If you can display to me how abiogenesis in the lab is drastically different than what you require at the outset of life, then please do. I would find that very educational. If you can assert to me how any of the speciation events that have been empirically observed don't fit your argument that "macroevolution has never been observed" please do so. I would find that very educational. So far, it just seems that you are misinformed. That's not an attack on your character, we're just arguing points of fact, are we not? You said my car was blue. You are misinformed. Honestly, what is the criteria for you to change your perspective on this subject? GOD himself to tell you that its okay? Do you really want to insult GOD as to limit his ability at the outset? The empirical data is not on your side. Please address my points. Alluding to some person's statements per conviction... statements that haven't addressed the points I've raised doesn't mean anything to me; should it? Honestly, should it? You know a great deal about engineering, I'm sure. I know nothing about engineering... maybe I should find some random quotes by fringe academics that argue against historically valid engineering. Please address my points. The fact that you never addressed any of my points was the cause of my pent-up backlash in the previous post. In the meantime, all my best (in a hilarious turn of events, it turns out that the talkorigins site details the fact that creationists use the rhetoric that they can be dismissive of evolutionary science since it is our religion, lol). Again, all my best Grizzled.
Care to detail those illogical points? Thanks in advance. (God, we're never really going to get anywhere are we? You totally sucked me in by that 'sly' remark earlier... basically calling me lazy ).
I first read the start of Achebe's post, and thought, there he goes again (no offense Achebe ). But then I read your last post Grizzled, and must admit...I'm flabergasted. I guess I may be an idiot, but I think Big Bang and evolution are very scientific. Well, how do you dismiss those of us who believe in God as creator and Big Bang/evolution? Are we so totally desperate for belief, that we need both?
I just read through his whole web page, and it looks like he an excellent teacher. Hard, and good. He puts in extra class sessions and review sessions. Encourages students to come by his office.
no offense taken Cohen. Can you believe that I'm honestly trying to stop getting sucked into these arguments? rotfl. I need a dayplanner.
I don't have time to read this whole thread, but why does Evolution have to disavow Creation. Of course, the fittest survives the most and the longest. Duh! Can' they both be viable realities? It seems that the Evolutionists want to extrapolate backwards to disavow possibilities of Creation. Everybody stretches to disallow the other.
lol fromobile... giddyup, that's the beaut... I don't know of a single scientist that has ever said "evolution has disproven the existence of God". That would be utter nonsense. ps, Great post.
Thanks, achebe, that's the nicest thing you've ever said to/about me.... Back to the subject. Both sides (Science and Religion) need to be satisfied with describing the mystery of the Universe and not be trying to define it. A little humility please.
Ultimately I see this as an unwinnable arguement for both Achebe and Grizzled, becuse... 1. Achebe's world values logic above all else. I get the feeling that Achebe really wouldn't mind if he was wrong, so long as what was right was explained to him in logical, consistant detail. 2. For people of faith, on the otherhand, people who are able to believe in what they believe in in spite of evidence to the contrary (see doubting himself in the desert & Lot's continued belief in God despite of widespread belief to the contrary.) Indeed, the most valued proof of God's existence, the miracle, is important because it is unexplainable. Because of this dichotomy, every point which seems salient and damming from one side, appears empty and hollow from the other. Grizzled's recitation of academic degrees of his champions, while at the same time admiting a lack of understanding, probably seemed like a shrewed expositive tactic by Grizzled, while seeming a sign that he was unfit to discuss the subject for Achebe. In short, I think you guys could argue from now till judgement day (or Einstein Bang or TS Elliot's whimper) and never agree. It's a fundamental disagreement about what qualifies as important criteria when trying to make sense of the universe.
Well, no you haven’t. I think you have stated that these things are so, but Harrub and Thompson state otherwise, and quote many sources. It is because I am a scientist, an applied scientist, that I know ego is a good indicator of lack of knowledge, lack of confidence, or lack of wisdom (note: the three are not necessarily independent). When you say “every credible scientist believes in evolution,” I know that is a considerable overstatement. Even many who are not creationists have problems with the theory of evolution. So when you make strong sweeping statements like this, that are fairly easily demonstrably untrue, I have to wonder why? What else are you telling me that isn’t true? Your strong statement on the Big Bang theory and then quick flip-flop would be another example. A wise scientist is more measured and considered in responding. There are very few absolutes, (or things we understand absolutely anyway). If you ever hear me saying that I have spiritual truth, for example, then the one thing you will know for sure it that I’m full of it. I tell you what I believe, knowing full well that at least some of it will be wrong, and let the listener discern for themselves. As engineers, we not only deal in theory, we test empirically like crazy. In the graveyard of 4” x 8” concrete test cylinders there are probably millions of dead. We can tell you with high certainly what forces a given structure will withstand. And yet, every now and then, a Tacoma Narrows bridge collapses, or a space shuttle falls out of the sky. If, as an engineer, I give you a 100% guarantee that all my scientific knowledge is perfect, you should fire me, because I obviously don’t know what I’m talking about. I’m too cocky and I’m going to make a mistake. And when you make such grandiose statements I have to question how carefully you’ve considered the alternatives. These people have “attained greatness” because they weren’t afraid to question. They weren’t afraid to say that something didn’t make sense when it didn’t make sense. There is nothing magic about what they are saying. (Again, I’ll note that I don’t agree 100% with what they said.) They are scientists and they used scientific evidence and reasoning. If it doesn’t walk like a duck, and doesn’t talk like a duck, then we shouldn’t necessarily believe it’s a duck. Not too advanced really. And their argument, like mine was not in favour of creation, (although I did mention spirituality in the broader context of this discussion), it is primarily that the theory of evolution doesn’t stand up well to scientific scrutiny. At the very least it is presented as having a MUCH higher confidence level than it deserves. When we started this I didn’t know you were studying evolution. That obviously complicates this discussion. As a scientist I have heard convincing explanations from experts in the field, but I am not an expert in the field and for me to engage you directly on a technical level will obviously be difficult. If we don’t bring it to my level of scientific knowledge it will largely be an argument by proxy where I will have to hunt for an expert’s opinion on a subject, and learn about and respond to you criticisms of it. That summary link gives me a good start, but this may well prove to be too inefficient a process, particularly since you won’t admit to any objections thus requiring me to present everything from scratch. I’ll start tomorrow by drawing some information from that summary paper, but I won’t guarantee how long I’m going to go with this. Trying to put me in a camp I’m not in isn’t going to convince me of much. What would convince me? Address the criticisms. Heck, start by acknowledging that they exist. That would go a way toward restoring my faith in your objectivity. When you try to blow it all off with some trying-to-be-clever remark, you’re not convincing me. Just the opposite, in fact. Funny, that’s exactly what my Ph.D.s are saying about your side, and they provide arguments and references. If I’m an engineer worth anything I ought to be able to do a reasonable job explaining something to you in relatively simple language. I would appreciate it if you would attempt that here. But this is not always easy, and that may end up being our stumbling block here. As I said, I’ll do this sometime tomorrow. Perhaps there are some like this, but I don’t see this as having any more validity than your dismissiveness from the other end of the spectrum, also a non-empirical position. I’m interested in looking at it scientifically, as are the people I referenced.
They are theories with a lot of holes. Do you feel there is a convincing logical reason to believe the Big Bang theory? If so, I have no problem with it. I suspect that it might be something that’s been over sold to you though. Yes I’m a scientist, but it’s in these fringe areas of science that I think the traditional logic based, scientific perspective breaks down. I don’t find this inconsistent with the principles of science, however, just that we have to expand our thinking about what science is. It is illogical that something can be generated from nothing, so where did the first bit of matter come from? Are there greater forces or force in the universe? If so, do I have any spiritual connection to it/them? This is inquiry that involves personal exploration and experimentation. Traditional science presents some very far out non-spiritual theories that defy the laws of science as we know them. I’m not against doing this, but lets not make them out to be anything more than they are. Lets not pass them off as truth when they are loose theories at best. I have no problem with the search for truth, because I believe that if you seek it you will find it (even if imperfectly). My personal belief is that that truth includes spiritual truth. I will admit, however, that I don’t have a clear crossover point from the logic based to the logic and spirituality based understandings of our nature. This may sound weak, but it seems to happen in different ways at different times for different people. Somewhere along the line you hit a barrier where you say, “this just can’t be, logic is not adequate to explain this.” So, with respect to the logic based science perspective, I guess I’m concerned that it doesn’t get taken too far and be made out to be something it’s not, because at that point it becomes a faith (or a political power structure, which might be closer to Kuhn’s perspective), but not logic based science alone, and therefore it becomes false, something that is pretending to be something it isn’t.
If this is your position, then we may actually have grounds to agree on some things, not becasue it necessarily introduces the existance of God, but becasue for me it opens the door to question some of the established scientific views.
Grizzled, I think that Ottamaton has nailed the core issue... we may simply be talking past one another. I read a bit more of the piece by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and I'm ashamed to admit that they're completely disingenuous (that damn word again). Other articles by them on the same site are completely contrived to argue some point that isn't credible. ie, in that article, Paleoanthropology is fully cognizant of the fact that those pieces are bs. Is all of paleoanthropology built on those few skulls? That's completely absurd. I also read the bit about abiogenesis in the link you provided, and it was less than compelling. Quotes from dated scientists or quotes from people taken out of context??? Lovtrup is an evolutionist, he's a fringe academic, but he doesn't refute evolution. Its true that Darwin didn't get it all right, but they need to address cytological and genetic reasons why they sweepingly dismiss evolution. Ad hoc quotes are meaningless, don't you agree? Someone with the credentials you cite should at least be able to argue mechanistically why all of the data are taken out of context. So far they're just apologists. Incidentally, it seems like a good market. After I get my PhD, I'll make millions off of the ideologues. Maybe I'll make up a new particle. Again, all my best. Don't work too hard on your post... I have to study this week for an exam, so I'll be doing my damndest to stay away. re: the comment to giddyup, I didn't mean to imply that I'm open to persuasive parables or philosophy or anything... I'm a diehard empiricist. I simply don't argue against a GOD in the position of the Big Bang/nbranes, etc. I have no material to even make such a statement. I am not a physicist... those guys are all perverts like BBob. They are all pasty white and think that they can prove to their wives w/ some equation that BlockBuster is out of LOTR and that she need not leave the house. just kidding bbob
I also had a post commenting favourably on Ottamaton’s post too, (except for his suggestion that I’m avoiding the facts) but somehow it disappeared on me. I got distracted and left it too long without hitting send perhaps? At any rate, it may well be difficult to get anywhere with this. Your dismissal of Harrub and Thompson is a little too quick and complete for me to have much confidence in. They also mention other scientists who have a similar position to theirs, but for me to discuss this with you, and for you to accept anything I say, I would have to have the same level of technical knowledge on this subject as you. And that’s just not going to happen. So we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. Anyway, time to get some workd done.
Hasn't it been determined through genetics that all humans share a common maternal (thus paternal) ancestor?
think MC Hawking said it best in his song F*ck The Creationists, here are the lyrics Trash Talk Ah yeah, here we go again! Damn! This is some funky **** that I be laying down on your ass. This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of evolutionary science. Check it! Verse 1 F*ck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass b****es, every time I think of them my trigger finger itches. They want to have their bull****, taught in public class, Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass. Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve, straight up fairy stories even children don't believe. I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say, all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day. Chorus F*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*k the Creationists. Trash Talk Break it down. Ah damn, this is a funky jam! I'm about ready to kick this b**** back in. Check it. Verse 2 F*k the damn creationists I say it with authority, because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority. Them wack-ass b****es say, "evolution's just a theory", they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me. The cosmos is expanding every second, every day, but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray. They call their bull**** science like the word could give them cred, if them b****es be scientists then cap me in the head. Chorus Trash Talk Bass! Bring that **** in! Ah yeah, that's right, **** them all mother****ers. F*cking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years. F*ck that! If them superstitious mother****ers want to have that kind of party, I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes. F*cking creationists. F*ck them.
Thanks, I understand your opinion better. I also understand some issues with development of the Big Bang theory (e.g. the dark matter 'mass' required for the expansion/temperature calculations), and it is a theory, but I think overall it makes sense to me (and evidence like the Big Bang 'echo' make it more than just 'sensical'). Even....especially from the perspective of a supreme being. The temperature of the singularity was an astronomically huge number...trillions of degrees. Yet if the temperature was a small fraction of one degree different, the formation of galaxies and solar systems would never have occurred...hmmmm....(of course, you could accept the infinite-universe theory that could explain-off the 'unqiueness' of the singularity's temperature...but I don't think so). Similarly with evolution, as I mentioned previously, I understand that genetics determined that all humans share the same maternal ancestor. I not only see no problem with the coexistence of Big Bang/Evolution and God, I see them supporting my belief in a Supreme Being. I guess my 'crossover' point between logic and spiritually seems less filled with conflict as yours. Also, you mention 'logic'. Although I don't feel compelled to venture there often (and certainly don't for what we've discussed thus far), I find the realization of limitations of the mind (only 4 dimensions, time as a dimension not a constant, diffculty conceptualizing quantum theory, etc.) to be a 'release'. Our mind's 'logic' only performs well on a macro level, and all of the 'rules' were written during the Big Bang (IMHO, of course ). All of the 'rules' could have been very different (except maybe that damn pi ). I try to keep my mind open to all possibilities. In summary, if I was to continue to discuss this topic with you, we would only be left with discussing the strengths and weaknesses of a couple of scientific theories, which is a prospect I find very unappealing (no offense ).
Silliness. 1. You are trusting man in trusting "creationism." At the first layer, you're trusting those who have interpreted it for you. In the second layer, you're trusting those who originally transcribed it. Finally, you're ignoring a fundamental contradiction in Genesis involving two separate, mutually exclusive creation myths. 2. He's asking for a letter of recommendation as a scientist. As far as science goes, there's absolutely no reason to suspect any other source other than evolution. I think this professor might go the tiniest bit too far. Were I him, I'd only require my students to understand and use language pertinent to evolution while discussing scientific models. However... it's perfectly understandable to require people who want to become scientists to engage in a scientific mindset. Hell, he could even make it a challenge: find scientific evidence for creationism, and I'll write you a letter. You don't even have to prove it... just find some credible evidence.
