Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I really want to know the answer to this question. Who here has actually read Darwin's works on evolution?

If you're an atheist, you should(If you're a Christian, you should ,too). If you are an athiest, then you don't believe that there is a God. Therefore, the only thing that you can believe about the origin of the Earth is the Big Bang theory, and you believe that all life came to be by evolution. The theory of evolution was created by Charles Darwin, so you believe what he has written and said.

However, how many of you have read one of his books? How many have read his ORIGINAL book on evolution? If you haven't, how can you believe in something that you don't know? Because if you haven't read what he has said, how do you know what he said?

Can anyone here answer any of those questions?

Darwin's writings haven't been relevant for decades. People would only read them now as a historical curiosity. Science changes too fast for work done over a century ago to be very expository.

Maybe, but the theory of evolution is based off of them. What atheists today believe is contrary to what Darwin said, so I think that it can't really be called "the theory of evolution" anymore.

the theory of evolution is based on Darwin's work, sure, however Darwin's work is no longer authoritive on the subject.

for instance, I printed off an article today about how neurological atrophy in old age tells us about the evolution of the brain through earlier forms of the homo genus. In Darwin's time, this would have been impossible to do, as they lacked fundamental understandings of biology and neurology that we enjoy today. sure, he provided some groundwork and insight, but the beauty of science is that it moves past personalities and sticks with what the evidence says.

why do you think evolution and atheism are incompattable?

Originally posted by inimalist
why do you think evolution and atheism are incompattable?

Because evolution proves my God exists. uhuh

Originally posted by dadudemon
Because evolution proves my God exists. uhuh

you can't prove something that is unfalsifiable

Originally posted by inimalist
you can't prove something that is unfalsifiable

I did.

I prayed. God answered my prayer in a specific way. Then I found direct evidence of it which happens to be the entire set of modern biology.


So do I win?

not at science

Originally posted by inimalist
not at science

Really?




Okay. I guess I'll just ignore all of modern biology, then.


Man, I was really looking forward to a mature nano-technology that could cure most forms of cancer, too.


Way to dash my hopes and dreams, bub.

I was never seriously taught Creationism, even when I was little and brought up Catholic. So the evolution vs Creationism debate was a non-issue in my gradual conversion to what most would consider atheism.

Originally posted by zoom3
If you are an athiest, then you don't believe that there is a God. Therefore, the only thing that you can believe about the origin of the Earth is the Big Bang theory Well, no...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I was never seriously taught Creationism, even when I was little and brought up Catholic. So the evolution vs Creationism debate was a non-issue in my gradual conversion to what most would consider atheism.

Except for the Catholic part, Ditto. In fact, I did not run into the creationism idea (from another human) until after mo-fuggin' highschool, if you can believe it. I had a general idea of what it was but no single person had ever stated they believed in it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really?




Okay. I guess I'll just ignore all of modern biology, then.


Man, I was really looking forward to a mature nano-technology that could cure most forms of cancer, too.


Way to dash my hopes and dreams, bub.

the conclusion that modern biology supports any divine entity is not in line with scientific evidence. It might be your interpretation, but failing any ability to falsify the theory, it isn't science.

Originally posted by inimalist
the conclusion that modern biology supports any divine entity is not in line with scientific evidence. It might be your interpretation, but failing any ability to falsify the theory, it isn't science.

That is a distinction that most people have a problem with. Even supper string theory is not really science, because there is no way to falsify it, as of yet.

... it really doesnt matter if people have a problem with it, science is t democratic.

Originally posted by zoom3
I really want to know the answer to this question. Who here has actually read Darwin's works on evolution?

If you're an atheist, you should(If you're a Christian, you should ,too). If you are an athiest, then you don't believe that there is a God. Therefore, the only thing that you can believe about the origin of the Earth is the Big Bang theory, and you believe that all life came to be by evolution. The theory of evolution was created by Charles Darwin, so you believe what he has written and said.

However, how many of you have read one of his books? How many have read his ORIGINAL book on evolution? If you haven't, how can you believe in something that you don't know? Because if you haven't read what he has said, how do you know what he said?

Can anyone here answer any of those questions?

Evolution and Big Bang theory are not in contradiction with existence of God. They're only in contradiction to certain religious texts.

Originally posted by inimalist
... it really doesnt matter if people have a problem with it, science is t democratic.

What? Are you having an issue because I used the word "problem"?

Even the scientists who are working with super string theory admit that sense there is no way to falsify the theory, it is not yet science.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? Are you having an issue because I used the word "problem"?

Even the scientists who are working with super string theory admit that sense there is no way to falsify the theory, it is not yet science.

yes, exactly...

i don't see what the problem could possibly be, string theory is in no way a verified theory

I think I speak for everyone when I say....."reeeeeeeeeed" what is this read? Darwin sounds like a nerd who had to much time on his hands. How come there isn't the masterbation monologues, I mean what did people do in the 1800's to keep themselves entertained?

It would be more productive to read a modern text book on evolution. Darwin's original work was only a starting place. He got a lot of things wrong, but what he got right was profound.

honestly, the Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins is probably the best book/text on evolution I've encountered. Its not a "textbook", but covers most of the major concepts, and offers a very "human centered" look back at evolutionary history. So good, can't recommend it enough.

Originally posted by inimalist
the conclusion that modern biology supports any divine entity is not in line with scientific evidence.

Correction: some forms of evidence. Please don't throw around the word "scientific" as though any word modified by the word scientific makes it irrefutable and objective.

Originally posted by inimalist
It might be your interpretation, but failing any ability to falsify the theory, it isn't science.

Correction: isn't your personal version of science.

So what did I learn? You believe in an ultimate objective truth without admitting it is God.

Originally posted by inimalist
... it really doesnt matter if people have a problem with it, science is t democratic.

It sure is. This is where you fail with using the word "science".

Originally posted by dadudemon
...
It sure is. This is where you fail with using the word "science".

What? Science is not democratic. If 80% of all the scientists in the world believed the Earth was flat, then 80% of all scientists in the world would be wrong.

hello? Men wrote history..who cares? be careful what you place into ur mind..you might loose your head

Originally posted by alltoomany
hello? Men wrote history..who cares? be careful what you place into ur mind..you might loose your head

What does that have to do with anything? We are not talking about history.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? Science is not democratic. If 80% of all the scientists in the world believed the Earth was flat, then 80% of all scientists in the world would be wrong.

Pluto.


Also, the earth is flat, depending on which scientific definition or scientific perspective you want to subjectively apply.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Pluto.


Also, the earth is flat, depending on which scientific definition or scientific perspective you want to subjectively apply.

I'm getting stretch marks just from reading your post.

back in college but it seemed to me as if he got most of his thoughts out of biblical history.

Originally posted by alltoomany
back in college but it seemed to me as if he got most of his thoughts out of biblical history.

Do you know zoom3?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you know zoom3?

No...

Originally posted by alltoomany
No...

Then who is the "he" from you post above?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Correction: some forms of evidence. Please don't throw around the word "scientific" as though any word modified by the word scientific makes it irrefutable and objective.

no, but scientific evidence is evidence of a different kind than what you presented. You presented evidence that relates to personal subjective religious experiences. What makes evidence scientific or not is really not a matter of opinion, except in very rare cases that are much more convoluted than your example.

it doesn't make science irrefutable or objective, and I'm really not even arguing that science is superior here, however, there is a very specific type of evidence required for something to be scientific, and your prayer revelation does not meet that standard.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Correction: isn't your personal version of science.

there aren't such things as "personal versions of science".

Originally posted by dadudemon
So what did I learn? You believe in an ultimate objective truth without admitting it is God.

objective, sure. I don't know what an ultimate truth would be, and certainly believing that there is such a thing as reality is not the same as believing in the divine.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It sure is. This is where you fail with using the word "science".

in... in what possible way? the context of that quote is that people in general have a problem with the standards of evidence in science... were it democratic, it would mean science would have to change those standards to accommodate popular opinion.

I'd never expect such solipsism from you....

Originally posted by inimalist
no, but scientific evidence is evidence of a different kind than what you presented. You presented evidence that relates to personal subjective religious experiences. What makes evidence scientific or not is really not a matter of opinion, except in very rare cases that are much more convoluted than your example.

I disagree, scientifically, of course.

Originally posted by inimalist
it doesn't make science irrefutable or objective, and I'm really not even arguing that science is superior here, however, there is a very specific type of evidence required for something to be scientific, and your prayer revelation does not meet that standard.

I disagree. It also was not a prayer revelation, but an extremely specific prayer confirmation.

It was far more specific than, "Okay, God, give me the numbers to all the world's lottery's currently running" and then getting them all correct.

If I wanted my confirmation on how to objectively prove if this information was correct, I got it. But, keep in mind, this is not scientific stuff.

Originally posted by inimalist
there aren't such things as "personal versions of science".

It is quite unfortunate that you hold this. There's no way that you're this naive. I know you're not because you've been on the other side of this conversation, before. Before we continue...are you just posting contrary only because it conveniently contradicts something a theist said.

Originally posted by inimalist
objective, sure. I don't know what an ultimate truth would be, and certainly believing that there is such a thing as reality is not the same as believing in the divine.

And I believe that separating the two, from certain approaches, is kind of silly.


Originally posted by inimalist
in... in what possible way? the context of that quote is that people in general have a problem with the standards of evidence in science... were it democratic, it would mean science would have to change those standards to accommodate popular opinion.

I'd never expect such solipsism from you....

I've already shown you why. I can't help you any further.

But you have satisfied any question I had about your bias.

Edit - I understand objective science vs. "everything is actually subjective...which is the only ultimate objective truth".

I understand you're trying to convey that something is truly objective to you. That is obviously a fallacy of epic proportions and you also are aware of this.

I also understand that reproducing my experience has been done many many times which is one of the keys of "is this objective"? The conclusion I have made is the subjective problem, not the "evidence" I have collected. In no way am I pretending to have proven God exists. Hell, I could have tapped into this weird force we do not understand yet which seems like it is conscious...which is what everyone attributes to God. This is why I ultimately will always conclude, "I don't know, but I believe in God".


So I believe we got very tangential and we agree, regardless. You say "not God" I say "yup, God"

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, keep in mind, this is not scientific stuff.

/debate

Thank god!

Originally posted by inimalist
/debate

That was sarcasm.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That was sarcasm.

Really?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Really?

Yes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thank god!

*thanks God but may be thanking Satan on accident*

Originally posted by dadudemon
*thanks God but may be thanking Satan on accident*

There is nothing more sarcastic then a Buddhist saying thank god.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That was sarcasm.

ok, you can have your "science"

I wont even ask you about independent variables

The premise of this thread is dumb. You don't need to read the writings of Newton to understand math principles that came about because of his work.

"Darwinian" doesn't imply that he's some sort of revered figure that needs to be read. He was simply the originator of the idea.

This is a great example of a difference between religion and non-religion. I probably couldn't really be considered a Christian if I didn't have at least a passing familiarity with the Bible. But one can easily be an atheist, one who cites evolution as part of their reasoning, having not read Darwin. One enterprise changes knowledge as we learn more, the other stays the same. It's what happens when you don't have a dogma.

Like others have said, as scientific exposition, Darwin's fairly worthless now. It would be interesting as historical curiosity only.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, you can have your "science"

I wont even ask you about independent variables

Nor will I ask you about the subjective tools used in your supposed purely objective science. Don't forget your arbitrary p-values.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is nothing more sarcastic then a Buddhist saying thank god.

There's nothing more silly than an agnostic theist thinking he's thanking God every time he prays.

zoom may also be trolling us though.

I recommend we ignore his posts/threads until he provides more substance to discuss.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nor will I ask you about the subjective tools used in your supposed purely objective science. Don't forget your arbitrary p-values.

see, this is the problem, and I really don't want to get into it, but there is a huge difference between the epistemology of science and scientific evidence and the methods used within this more overarching scientific method.

So, for instance, the idea of peer review is fundamental to science. In fact, without such review, people are not engaged in science (so, even highly scientific books dealing with science topics that do not undergo peer review are not science).

Now, the way one sets up peer review is subjective, and there are more or less satisfactory ways of doing it, but there is no way you can be doing science if such a review is not happening.

also, there is nothing arbitrary with p-values... I think you mean alpha values or you are talking about the difference between the probability of your results representing chance (p-value) and your results representing the probability of your hypothesis being true (some other, normally Bayesian, method). Again, data analysis is a part of the scientific method, one that cannot be excluded from the method to still be doing science, but there are more or less satisfactory ways to do it, and there is a subjective component to which you choose. EDIT: just to reinforce this, the p-value CAN'T be an integral and necessary part of science, as it wasn't developed until the 1930s. This would mean that a huge portion of chemistry and physics, not to mention early psychology done by people like Wundt, Ebbinghaus or James are all not science, which they clearly are, if with the consideration that their data analysis methods are inferior to what we have developed today.

You are focused on the trees, I'm talking about the forest. The Scientific Method, not the choices individual researchers have to make while operating within that method.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...There's nothing more silly than an agnostic theist thinking he's thanking God every time he prays.

I can think of one... an atheist doing that.

Originally posted by inimalist
see, this is the problem, and I really don't want to get into it,

Yet you typed up a bunch.

Originally posted by inimalist
You are focused on the trees, I'm talking about the forest. The Scientific Method, not the choices individual researchers have to make while operating within that method.

You have that backwards.

You're focused on the trees, while I'm talking about the forest.


The only thing truly objective about science is that is subjective.

"We should choose a .05 p-value"

Why?

"Most stuff is 'caught' with that."

Why?

"Just cause, damnit! I don't want to admit that even that is subjective!"


Why?


"Because everything can be boiled down to an anthropic mess of subjectivity. Everything is in relative terms of subjectiveness."

Cool

"You ass."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yet you typed up a bunch.

think about how much that means I could have said on the topic.

Originally posted by inimalist
think about how much that means I could have said on the topic.



Just think of how much faster the conversations would be if we could actually have them instead of painstakingly typing them out?




I grow weary of typed conversation. We could have been done with this conversation in 5 minutes or less. Instead, we will continue to have this conversation for days.

Feynman on "Why?"

wMFPe-DwULM

Originally posted by Bardock42
Feynman on "Why?"

wMFPe-DwULM


Holy sh*t!

I have not seen this explanation before! He explained what I'm explaining in better terms than I could possibly have accomplished my entire life.

"Because everything can be boiled down to an anthropic mess of subjectivity. Everything is in relative terms of subjectiveness."

Yeah right...I'll take his explanation any day of the weak (quantum physics pun for those that will catch it).

Originally posted by dadudemon
You have that backwards.

You're focused on the trees, while I'm talking about the forest.

I don't think so. You continue to bring up choices individual researchers make while doing science, whereas I am talking about the philosophy and methods of science as a whole.

you are talking about the things contained within the thing I am talking about... much like how trees are contained within a forest...

/shrug

Originally posted by dadudemon
The only thing truly objective about science is that is subjective.

I'd like you to quote where I said the knowledge contained within science is objectivity or that science leads to absolute truths.

I'm saying there are a set of methods that one has to follow to be doing science, nothing about the veracity of those methods. Just that you must follow certain rules to be doing science.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"We should choose a .05 p-value"

ah, you do mean alpha-value. Alpha is the value you choose, p represents the probability of chance explaining your results.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why?

funny story, RA Fisher, who developed the p-value, said off hand in a single paper that .05 may be a good alpha value, for no real reason, and it has caught on.

I personally prefer a .01 value (I think a 1 in 100 chance of false positive is far better than 1 in 20), but that is a choice I make as a researcher, and if I got a .04, I'd still go with it being significant just for the publication.

this means, yes, whether you get a significant result with a p-value of .03 depends on your alpha value. This is not even related to the fact that to do science you must do some form of data analysis. Its about the choices you make about how to do data analysis, the overall method of science that includes data analysis is not challenged at all. Are you saying science before the 1930s was not actual science?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Feynman on "Why?" facepalm2

"But Dr. Feynman, I did not ask, 'Why magnets attract each other?'" "I asked, 'What is it, the feeling, between the two magnets?'" .

Dick would give Sheldon Cooper a headache.
I bet the interviewer's off-camera question was, "Why did I ask?"

Originally posted by Mindship
facepalm2

"But Dr. Feynman, I did not ask, 'Why magnets attract each other?'" "I asked, 'What is it, the feeling, between the two magnets?'" .

Dick would give Sheldon Cooper a headache.
I bet the interviewer's off-camera question was, "Why did I ask?"

I think he is making a valid point. And the question is basically the equivalent, because it presupposes so many things.

Originally posted by Mindship
facepalm2

"But Dr. Feynman, I did not ask, 'Why magnets attract each other?'" "I asked, 'What is it, the feeling, between the two magnets?'" .

The answer "magnetic force" isn't a satisfying one, which seems to be the whole point.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think so. You continue to bring up choices individual researchers make while doing science, whereas I am talking about the philosophy and methods of science as a whole.

you are talking about the things contained within the thing I am talking about... much like how trees are contained within a forest...

/shrug

I disagree. You continue to bring up the minute details (of which I only indulged twice) and I continue to summarize the entire discussion.

You're talking about the things within the things I am talking about. The entire picture. Literally, the big "everything" for why yo u think science is science is what I'm talking about.


Originally posted by inimalist
I'd like you to quote where I said the knowledge contained within science is objectivity or that science leads to absolute truths.

I'm saying there are a set of methods that one has to follow to be doing science, nothing about the veracity of those methods. Just that you must follow certain rules to be doing science.

So you're amending your position to be mine? Cool.

You do realize that you're not arguing my point, right?


Originally posted by inimalist
ah, you do mean alpha-value. Alpha is the value you choose, p represents the probability of chance explaining your results..

No, I'm arguing the p-value.

Often, your p-value will be .05 for verifying if your null hypothesis is true. The opposite of testing for statistical significance of the objective.



Originally posted by inimalist
funny story, RA Fisher, who developed the p-value, said off hand in a single paper that .05 may be a good alpha value, for no real reason, and it has caught on.

I personally prefer a .01 value (I think a 1 in 100 chance of false positive is far better than 1 in 20), but that is a choice I make as a researcher, and if I got a .04, I'd still go with it being significant just for the publication.

this means, yes, whether you get a significant result with a p-value of .03 depends on your alpha value. This is not even related to the fact that to do science you must do some form of data analysis. Its about the choices you make about how to do data analysis, the overall method of science that includes data analysis is not challenged at all. Are you saying science before the 1930s was not actual science?

Stop stealing my....thunder.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you're amending your position to be mine? Cool.

You do realize that you're not arguing my point, right?

be clear: I never, never, NEVER, EVER, have said science produces absolute truths. For some reason, you started assuming I did, thus my request to point out where I had implied something like that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I'm arguing the p-value.

Often, your p-value will be .05 for verifying if your null hypothesis is true. The opposite of testing for statistical significance of the objective.

you mean alpha, trust me. P is a value you get from your data that says how likely the results are due to chance, essentially based on a lack of pattern in the data. Alpha is the value of P you as a researcher select that represents how small P has to be before something is significant.

P reflects data and is not manipulable by a researcher, alpha is the level of P one thinks represents a "non-chance" explanation for the data.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Feynman on "Why?"

wMFPe-DwULM

ugh, physicists

Originally posted by inimalist
be clear: I never, never, NEVER, EVER, have said science produces absolute truths. For some reason, you started assuming I did, thus my request to point out where I had implied something like that.

The point where dadude starts making things up completely is usually about the point where I just end the conversation. It's descended into a contest of rehtoric.

Originally posted by inimalist
ugh, physicists

I know, right? They are so close, but still always a step away. If only they were Mathematicians

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know, right? They are so close, but still always a step away. If only they were Mathematicians

I was thinking about it

we probably shouldn't be surprised that people who communicate through math and understand the world in these abstract, spatial ways don't know how to effectively communicate in spoken language. I know its the oldest cliche ever, but it really seems logical that people whose most important form of communication is in equations and such wouldn't have the best skills communicating their points in other modalities. They just don't have the practice with it, because they don't need to professionally.

Originally posted by inimalist
be clear: I never, never, NEVER, EVER, have said science produces absolute truths. For some reason, you started assuming I did, thus my request to point out where I had implied something like that.

The moment you tried to define "scientific" as a trump card over my post is the instant you tried to present a superior truth when even your use/definition of "scientific" is anthropic and subjective.



Originally posted by inimalist
you mean alpha, trust me. P is a value you get from your data that says how likely the results are due to chance, essentially based on a lack of pattern in the data. Alpha is the value of P you as a researcher select that represents how small P has to be before something is significant.

P reflects data and is not manipulable by a researcher, alpha is the level of P one thinks represents a "non-chance" explanation for the data.

No, I don't. I said what I said because I meant to say it. No correction required.

http://www.graphpad.com/articles/pvalue.htm




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The point where dadude starts making things up completely is usually about the point where I just end the conversation. It's descended into a contest of rehtoric.

You mean that point where I call you out on dodging and using strawman arguments is when you go silent. Let's not go back to trolling.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlphaValue.html

Originally posted by inimalist
I was thinking about it

we probably shouldn't be surprised that people who communicate through math and understand the world in these abstract, spatial ways don't know how to effectively communicate in spoken language. I know its the oldest cliche ever, but it really seems logical that people whose most important form of communication is in equations and such wouldn't have the best skills communicating their points in other modalities. They just don't have the practice with it, because they don't need to professionally.

You turned that around well, kudos!

Originally posted by dadudemon
The moment you tried to define "scientific" as a trump card over my post is the instant you tried to present a superior truth when even your use/definition of "scientific" is anthropic and subjective.

please indicate where I used science as a trump, rather than saying you were not doing science...

in fact, if you look through my posts in the thread, I've gone to pains, multiple times, to say that I'm not arguing science is better or is a trump card, but that to do science you must follow specific rules. I have point blank claimed that I was not saying following these rules is better.

For instance:

Originally posted by inimalist
it doesn't make science irrefutable or objective, and I'm really not even arguing that science is superior here, however, there is a very specific type of evidence required for something to be scientific, and your prayer revelation does not meet that standard.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm saying there are a set of methods that one has to follow to be doing science, nothing about the veracity of those methods. Just that you must follow certain rules to be doing science.

so, again, lets stop putting words in my mouth, or, you know, show me where I've even tacitly implied what you are saying

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I don't. I said what I said because I meant to say it. No correction required.

http://www.graphpad.com/articles/pvalue.htm

that page is painfully introductory to the concept in the first place, and doing a quick ctrl+f for alpha returns me being correct about statistics. You know, something I've had graduate level education in and work with on, literally, a daily basis.



/facepalm

Originally posted by dadudemon
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlphaValue.html

how is this unclear to you? alpha is the threshold where p is significant... that is, literally, what both your links say...

Originally posted by inimalist
I was thinking about it

we probably shouldn't be surprised that people who communicate through math and understand the world in these abstract, spatial ways don't know how to effectively communicate in spoken language. I know its the oldest cliche ever, but it really seems logical that people whose most important form of communication is in equations and such wouldn't have the best skills communicating their points in other modalities. They just don't have the practice with it, because they don't need to professionally.

Feynman was famously good at explaining things, actually. He created visual representations of path integrals specifically so that wouldn't have to explain math to people. QED actually begins with him saying (paraphrased): "I'm not going to show you any of the math because you wouldn't understand it."

The Cohen brothers, of all people, got the core issue in a throwaway line from A Serious Man. "The math is how it really works." As you move further away from the math the explanation gets worse and worse. This isn't unique to physics or math, any specialized field develops a jargon, a set of words which carry the baggage of textbooks worth of information.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean that point where I call you out on dodging and using strawman arguments is when you go silent. Let's not go back to trolling.

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.

I loved that line.

Originally posted by inimalist
please indicate where I used science as a trump, rather than saying you were not doing science...

The hell?

No, you go back and read the thread. I even put in quotes what I was referring to.








Originally posted by inimalist
so, again, lets stop putting words in my mouth, or, you know, show me where I've even tacitly implied what you are saying

No, you stop dancing and dodging. And don't pretend my point was something it wasn't.

If you're truly interested in a conversation and not doing the typical dance you have been, lately, then PM me and I will quote your post privately.

If you're just doing this for more posturing/pissing contest, I am not interested in further dialogue.


Originally posted by inimalist
that page is painfully introductory to the concept in the first place, and doing a quick ctrl+f for alpha returns me being correct about statistics. You know, something I've had graduate level education in and work with on, literally, a daily basis.



/facepalm



how is this unclear to you? alpha is the threshold where p is significant... that is, literally, what both your links say...


Prove that this:

"No, I'm arguing the p-value.

Often, your p-value will be .05 for verifying if your null hypothesis is true. The opposite of testing for statistical significance of the objective."

Is wrong when it is directly right.


FFS, I explained this to you in another thread, already. facepalm


You know, I could ask you to stop putting words in my mouth...but IDGAF. If this is your agenda, cool. I hope it makes you feel better.

look, I'm done. You can throw around whatever accusations you want, not only can people read the thread, but they can actually see the two examples I provided where I am doing exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. you will show me in PM? no, please, 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.

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 BECAUSE OFTEN THE ALPHA LEVEL IS .05. I would not be allowed to do the work I do if I didn't know this...)

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think he is making a valid point. And the question is basically the equivalent, because it presupposes so many things. Yeah, I got the gist. It just reminded me of a three-year-old who keeps asking "Why?" everytime you give him/her a response to a previous question, til you have a whole chain of why-answer-why-answer-why-answer...

I like Feynman. And I grok where he was coming from. Still, I just couldn't help imagining the interviewer doing a mental facepalm.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The answer "magnetic force" isn't a satisfying one, which seems to be the whole point. 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.

But then, just an Edy's lime fruit bar can make me happy.

Maybe it's the mysterious monopole.

Originally posted by Mindship
Yeah, I got the gist. It just reminded me of a three-year-old who keeps asking "Why?" everytime you give him/her a response to a previous question, til you have a whole chain of why-answer-why-answer-why-answer...

I like Feynman. And I grok where he was coming from. Still, I just couldn't help imagining the interviewer doing a mental facepalm.


I don't understand...that's exactly his point. He is remarking on the fact that you can always ask "why" and at some point you either accept something as a given or you continue forever. That's exactly what you are saying about children. He's not behaving like a child that does that, he's pointing out the underlying cause of why a child can do that.

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.

But it's a ridiculous question. The initial question was "what is the feeling", which is weird, cause it relates to how you feel, it's no different to touching a chair (which Feynman points out the interviewer would perfectly accept as fulfilling answer).

He did, then, in clarifying his answer ask "why do they attract", to which Feynman tried to explain to him that there's not really a layman's explanation for this, he's come to the bottom of "why" without going into harder concepts.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't understand...that's exactly his point. He is remarking on the fact that you can always ask "why" and at some point you either accept something as a given or you continue forever. That's exactly what you are saying about children. He's not behaving like a child that does that, he's pointing out the underlying cause of why a child can do that. My bad. I didn't really mean it as an insult. It just struck me as funny.

Originally posted by Mindship
My bad. I didn't really mean it as an insult. It just struck me as funny.

Why?

Originally posted by Mindship
My bad. I didn't really mean it as an insult. It just struck me as funny.

I edited to go into it a bit more. I think it seems funny cause we focus on the initial question, but the interviewer actually did ask "why" in his attempt to clarify the question.

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

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.

It seems to me that he just talked enough that someone confused verbosity with depth.

You really don't like physicists, do you?

I'll say he didn't fail to meet expectations

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 BECAUSE OFTEN THE ALPHA LEVEL IS .05. I would not be allowed to do the work I do if I didn't know this...)

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). This I like.

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):

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.

Ti3mtDC2fQo

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.

2z-OLG0KyR4

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