Has anyone here even read Darwin's original works????

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm a big boy, I can take the public humiliation that would come with you showing me where I've used science as a trump card in this thread.

This is not the point, at all. This is diffusing you trolling. If you are genuinely interested and not just d*ck measuring, I am happy to oblige your request via PM.

Since this IS d*ck measuring for you, you will not want to discuss it privately. This confirms that you're all show.

Cool. 😬 Silly, lame...

But I don't care enough..

Originally posted by inimalist
as for the p-value thing, go ask a stats prof and try not to be too embarrassed.

(just to clarify, that statement is saying often a p-value of .05 will be significant [b]BECAUSE OFTEN THE ALPHA LEVEL IS .05. I would not be allowed to do the work I do if I didn't know this...) [/B]

You'll never ever convince me that you're arguing against my point. You are, instead, arguing against a point I have not made.

Let's get back to your original point. You hold your definition of science as superior to mine. I hold that there are multiple definitions and approaches and you're simply narrow minded.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You mean when I ask if you really mean the things you say and then you flip out? Once you've actually said a thing it ceases to be a strawman to say that you've made the claim. Truth is a perfect defense against libel.

In any event people can go see you trolling me in other threads.

No, I mean that point where I call you out on dodging and using strawman arguments is when you go silent.

And people can clearly see you trolling in the other threads where you state I'm trolling you.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but he said "why" in terms of "what is happening to produce this effect".

One answer would be: "Tiny particles called virtual photons carry force back and forth between them." That's basically how QED describes the effect. But then you'll want to know what the virtual photons are and how they get to carry forces.

To me he sounds like a person who has had this conversation before and is trying to head off the endless Socratic inquiry before it starts (and then forgot about the question entirely while attempting to explain the issue with asking "why" things happen).

Originally posted by inimalist
its like using the movement of electrons to explain how an engine moves a car forward. It makes sense, but not a really appropriate answer to the question.

The context seems relevant, lots of people can answer the question in a basic way but Feynman was known for being the guy who knew everything there was to know about matter and energy interact. This isn't like asking a NASCAR driver how an engine works, or even a mechanic, it's like asking the guy who invented the idea of engines.

Originally posted by Mindship
If he would've said something like, "It's the sensation of magnetic repulsion being passed through the magnets into your fingers," that would've done it for me.

You interpret language like a logician...

Originally posted by dadudemon
And people can clearly see you trolling in the other threads where you state I'm trolling you.

Sorry to break it to you but disagreeing with you is not trolling 😬

That's how 90% of our conversations go. I disagree with you, argue that your reasons for believing things fall below what I consider reasonable standard, you immediately accuse me of trolling in order to avoid having to present an argument.

Anyway, I conceede that you're better at rhetoric and sematic distortions than I am so there's not much point in continuting.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To me he sounds like a person who has had this conversation before and is trying to head off the endless Socratic inquiry before it starts (and then forgot about the question entirely while attempting to explain the issue with asking "why" things happen).

edit

Wait. This should be private. I won't respond to bait trolling like this...or at least I'll try to not.

I find it to be such an odd thing that people would try to debunking evolution by discrediting Darwin. That would be like trying to debunking Relativity by discrediting Einstein.

The fact is Darwin did not invent evolution. The idea of evolution had been around for a long time before Darwin. However, no one could ever figure out how such a thing would work. What Darwin did was to figure out the mechanism behind evolution, natural selection.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The fact is Darwin did not invent evolution.

IIRC, "evolution" as an archaic concept was entertained by various famous Rabbis throughout the ages. Not necessarily that protists eventually became Homo sapiens sapiens, but that the creation of man took "billions" of years.

That's not literal evolution but it is shockingly close and something I did not know about until the last few years. Jews are becoming more and more interesting as I study them (from a historical perspective).

http://www.hanefesh.com/edu/Evolution.htm

So, I am saying that I agree. "Evolution" as a concept probably came as an amalgamation from multiple sources including some of this "phasic cosmological creation" stuff I am reading from Jewish Rabbis.

Originally posted by dadudemon
IIRC, "evolution" as an archaic concept was entertained by various famous Rabbis throughout the ages. Not necessarily that protists eventually became Homo sapiens sapiens, but that the creation of man took "billions" of years.

What was their reasoning for that, religiously speaking?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What was their reasoning for that, religiously speaking?

One of the "heavy hitters" was Maimonides on this subject. He taught some stuff that was a tad too accurate for his time (imo, of course). A parallel I would compare it to would be Leucippus's description of atoms (done a bit better and more commonly attributed to his pupil, Democritus)

From the article (because I am definitely too ignorant on this to act in any sort of authoritative capacity on this subject):

In Genesis, the Torah (the five books of the Bible) describes a gradual process of creation from simple to more complex organisms: first a mass of swirling gasses, then water, then the emergence of dry land, followed by plants, fish, birds, animals, and finally, human beings. This, of course, is the same evolutionary process proposed by science.

But didn't the evolutionary process take much longer than the six days of creation?

In reading the story, you might observe that the Torah describes a "day" before the creation of the sun and moon to demarcate a 24-hour period. So what kind of "day" is it? Rabbi S.Hirsch explains that each Biblical "day" represents a mingling of raw materials (erev), followed by bursts of dramatic new development (boker).

The six days are simply six epochs, stages of the process. This has been the Jewish view for centuries.
The Torah's position has not changed; rather science has come to match it. Arnold Penzias, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his research on the Big Bang, once remarked: "What we see marking the flight of galaxies with our telescopes, Maimonides saw from his metaphysical view." There is one key point where Torah and evolutionists diverge: the question of "accident versus design."

I think they're either seriously stretching what Genesis says or massively failing to understand what science has found. I wouldn't give them any credit for "billions of years", just for the vague "a length of time that may or may not have been exactly equal to a day".

Still, not a bad interpretation. I'll give Maimonides credit for an impressive bit of thinking about how creation might happen.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think they're rather stretching what Genesis says to make it "the same evolutionary process".

I don't. Especially since, imo and the opinion of many theologians from times past, it is not intended to be literally interpreted. If you weigh in that some of those Rabbis did not have the advantage of the Hubble Telescope, modern biology, and the Special Theory of Relativity, that's awesome.

HOWEVER, and this is the kicker: hindsight may be causing us to choose the lucky "guessers" as awesome.

How many other rabbis interpreted this stuff differently? How many were famous that interpreted this differently?

I do not know the answer to those but I was more or less fascinated with how close to the natural some of the metaphysical speculation actually got.

Edit - Oops. Caught your edit.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think they're either seriously stretching what Genesis says or massively failing to understand what science has found. I wouldn't give them any credit for "billions of years", just for the vague "not exactly a day".

Still, not a bad interpretation. I'll give Maimonides credit for an impressive bit of thinking about how creation might happen.

Well, some did say billions of years. I just read on wiki "15 billion years" from one of them which is cutting it surprisingly close (bare with me) to the 13.7 we have now.

Indeed: like I mentioned, observing the universe around him and using the religious texts to come up with a fairly close to "actual" interpretation of the universe is impressive. I still caution about "hindsight". It makes me wonder how many other speculative treasures are hidden out there? We have the famous stuff that was been immortalized like the works of Plato and Aristotle.

It frustrates me to see so much knowledge disappearing with the deaths of intellectuals and "aging" of artifacts/documents. So much good stuff to just know but we can't. 🙁

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't. Especially since, imo and the opinion of many theologians from times past, it is not intended to be literally interpreted. If you weigh in that some of those Rabbis did not have the advantage of the Hubble Telescope, modern biology, and the Special Theory of Relativity, that's awesome.

My main issue is that Genesis is explicitly about an ordered process. It is filled with "and then" as well as with the much harder divisions in the forms of individual epochs/days. Here it is organized by verse.

2) formless chaos
3) light
6) water
9) land
11) plants
14) sun, moon, stars
20) fish, birds
24) land animals

The first two (maybe three) are accurate as far as we understand things scientifically but after that it falls apart completely if they want to say that "science is catching up to the Torah". The problem is less that the sun was created after plants and more that there is no room for the simultaneity of evolution that would have really happened. Early plants and fish evolved along side each other.

Originally posted by dadudemon
HOWEVER, and this is the kicker: hindsight may be causing us to choose the lucky "guessers" as awesome.

How many other rabbis interpreted this stuff differently? How many were famous that interpreted this differently?

This is my main problem with these things. I don't give Democritus credit for much more than an interesting notion because lots of people were proposing ideas. It would be much more shocking if we found an idea that no one had ever proposed something similar to in the whole of human history.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - Oops. Caught your edit.

Sorry that was a big one. I wanted to check out Maimonides.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, some did say billions of years. I just read on wiki "15 billion years" from one of them which is cutting it surprisingly close (bare with me) to the 13.7 we have now.

That's based on Psalms: "A thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday." If we avoid picking and choosing then the same passage predicts that people should live for a thousand years, as we are like "the grass of morning" which withers at the end of one day 😛

I also cannot find any primary source material about what "Isaac ben Samuel of Acre" actually wrote on the subject of creation which always makes me suspicious. Not to mention that if he starts by knowing how long a heavenly day is the only way to get the age of the universe is to know the age of heaven I can't imagine him doing much more than making stuff up half way through.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My main issue is that Genesis is explicitly about an ordered process. It is filled with "and then" as well as with the much harder divisions in the forms of individual epochs/days. Here it is organized by verse.

2) formless chaos
3) light
6) water
9) land
11) plants
14) sun, moon, stars
20) fish, birds
24) land animals

The first two (maybe three) are accurate as far as we understand things scientifically but after that it falls apart completely if they want to say that "science is catching up to the Torah". The problem is less that the sun was created after plants and more that there is no room for the simultaneity of evolution that would have really happened. Early plants and fish evolved along side each other.

I agree: when it is ever read as anything more than a spiritual journey, it becomes stupid (FYI, that's a virtual paraphrase from some Christian dude way back in the day...I can't take credit for that concept but I agree with his words).

The concept of how the creation happened existed in multiple cultures in similar ways. Some apologists have said things similar to, "God gave them an idea in a form that they would understand because modern physics and cosmology would have been absurdly difficult for them to grasp." I am not too keen on that justification for why it is "off" but I can deal with some of it.

My preference of an explanation is more like, "God showed them what it looked like in a fisheye type of vision...and it spanned billions of years. They had no idea WTF they just saw and could not interpret it in their ignorance so they summed up as best as they could. Oral traditions and writings morphed and changed the actual 'accounting' slightly and we have what we have today...and it's a mess."*

If there is a God and he did give some ancient dudes visions, my version is probably closer to the truth than, "Oh...well, God just told them a B.S. story because it would have made sense to them at the time."

*I'll note that some oral traditions have been passed for centuries with crazy accuracy, contradicting a portion of my idea.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is my main problem with these things. I don't give Democritus credit for much more than an interesting notion because lots of people were proposing ideas. It would be much more shocking if we found an idea that no one had ever proposed something similar to in the whole of human history.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying. We like to credit the
"winners" and forget about the "losers."

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's based on Psalms: "A thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday." If we avoid picking and choosing then the same passage predicts that people should live for a thousand years, as we are like "the grass of morning" which withers at the end of one day 😛

I also cannot find any primary source material about what "Isaac ben Samuel of Acre" actually wrote on the subject of creation which always makes me suspicious. Not to mention that if he starts by knowing how long a heavenly day is the only way to get the age of the universe is to know the age of heaven I can't imagine him doing much more than making stuff up half way through.

It is very hard for me to read Psalms that way because I approach the text with a much different bias. I see them more like symbols: our lives are similar to the life and intelligence of grass, compared to God and his "greater than 13.7 billion year" existence.

To the second part, that's why I said I read it on wiki: it could be a rogue Jew editing that wiki page just to make Judaism sound better/more accurate. That's hardly a "first time that's happened" thing for various subjects on the Wiki. I remember when Obama was first elected, the Presidential Symbol/Seal/Image was a watermelon. 😬

what i think is really hard to reconcile with evolution is the garden of eden. even as an allegory the two accounts seem to me like polar opposites.

If anyone's read my previous posts, they'll probably be able to guess my stance on evolution, so I won't go into that in full detail.

One thing I will go into is the fun little factoid that Charles Darwin was a known occultist and friend of Westcott and Hort, the two driving forces behind the Revised Bible of 1881, which is where every modern mainstream Bible version stems from (NIV, NKJV, ASV, etc.). The KJV is the only modern Bible version that comes from a different lineage.

Westcott and Hort (allegedly along with Darwin) were also occultists and members of the "Hermes Club". The two Bible "revisionists" also actually founded "The Ghostly Guild", which was basically a seance, channeling and occult club.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
If anyone's read my previous posts, they'll probably be able to guess my stance on evolution, so I won't go into that in full detail.

One thing I will go into is the fun little factoid that Charles Darwin was a known occultist and friend of Westcott and Hort, the two driving forces behind the Revised Bible of 1881, which is where every modern mainstream Bible version stems from (NIV, NKJV, ASV, etc.). The KJV is the only modern Bible version that comes from a different lineage.

Westcott and Hort (allegedly along with Darwin) were also occultists and members of the "Hermes Club". The two Bible "revisionists" also actually founded "The Ghostly Guild", which was basically a seance, channeling and occult club.

Does the fact that Einstein marred his cousin make E=MC2 untrue?

Darwin didn’t invent evolution, he discovered natural selection in nature. Just like Einstein discovered Relativity in nature.

YouTube video

Interesting take on the role intelligent design plays not only in religion or society, but in science and probably our own cognition in general.

I'm sure just about everyone if not everyone here has seen this, but it's still my favorite skit on ID. Pure gold.

YouTube video

^ That is too funny. 😂 I love how the banana fits into the hand.