What would it take?

[SnakeLord]

so if an alternative understanding of evolution is reached it's effect would be so wide as to disrupt the time/space continuum?

1. Ok, let me take a moment to explain your error. Hopefully you will recognise the error once I have explained it but I would be grateful if you could confirm that in your response or ask for further clarification.

In your scenario, evolution is still a fact of reality, you are questioning the how, the methods involved. To remain consistent then, your analogy must maintain that water does boil at 100 degrees but the how or method might differ.

Please take some time to consider what exactly the aim of your challenge is and that such challenge must be consistent.

i) Either evolution is true and water boiling at 100 is true, (you're questioning the "how") or
ii) Evolution is not true, (hence we do not exist), and water boiling at 100 is not true.

I would be very grateful if you clarify which one it is you have made as the challenge.

2) I would also be grateful if - upon picking one of those to be the challenge - you could offer the point of it in hypothesis form (if-then) or at least just explain what you think would be the necessary outcome should, in either case, the answer be that it wouldn't make that great a difference.

Many thanks and good day.

 

[lightgigantic]

1. Ok, let me take a moment to explain your error. Hopefully you will recognise the error once I have explained it but I would be grateful if you could confirm that in your response or ask for further clarification.

In your scenario, evolution is still a fact of reality, you are questioning the how, the methods involved.

I can see now where you are making the mistake.

In the scenario, we are talking about the degree that our everyday life (and scientific thought on the mechanics behind it) is contingent on two particular givens.

IOW in the scenario it is not a given that either of the two premises remain a fact of reality.

The point of comparing the two premises is to show how one practically undermines everything (due to a host of doable activities being contingent on it) and the other simply warrants changing the body of theoretical writing that is currently in vogue (due to it being intrinsically theoretical).

IOW if contemporary ideas on evolution got ousted by findings more in line with intelligent design (for example - such as glass ceilings drawing the limits of speciation due to to irreducible qualities of particular life forms) all that would be jeopardized are the careers of certain academics and the print runs of their texts.

 

[wynn]

Or in different pressurized environments?

Do you think it gives results that are vastly different from 100 degrees?

Water can be boiled at room temperature, provided you have a vacuum.
http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to-boil-water-room-temperature-vacuum-174202/

 

[wynn]

I can see now where you are making the mistake.

In the scenario, we are talking about the degree that our everyday life (and scientific thought on the mechanics behind it) is contingent on two particular givens.

IOW in the scenario it is not a given that either of the two premises remain a fact of reality.

The point of comparing the two premises is to show how one practically undermines everything (due to a host of doable activities being contingent on it) and the other simply warrants changing the body of theoretical writing that is currently in vogue (due to it being intrinsically theoretical).

IOW if contemporary ideas on evolution got ousted by findings more in line with intelligent design (for example - such as glass ceilings drawing the limits of speciation due to to irreducible qualities of particular life forms) all that would be jeopardized are the careers of certain academics and the print runs of their texts.

I think SL's mistake is that he does not see the theory of evolution as a theory (ie. merely a way of explaining the differences between living beings etc.), but as a fact.

Similarly, for example, many people believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun and that our planetary system indeed is this:

They do not see this image as a theory, but as adequate representation of fact/reality.
This kind of images have been so deeply ingrained into their minds that they cannot think of them as theories anymore.

So, according to them, if a thought experiment is proposed in which a different arrangement of the planets would be supposed, they would say that our solar system would collapse - not because of the thought experiment, of course, but because they believe that the only order in which the planets can be, is the one presented by the popular theory, and everything else would be a non-existent system.

Similarly with the ToE. Some people are so sure of it that to suppose some other way to explain the differences between living beings and the existence of humans, would be to say that humans do not exist.

Interestingly, if some properties of water would suddenly, all over the world, turn to properties characteristic of oil (such as boiling at about 150 or 230°C), they don't seem to see a problem (if water boiled at that temperature, regular washing machines and water heaters would be useless, for example), not to mention that almost all living beings would have to switch to a much more efficient metabolism or get used to eating a lot more just in order to keep their bodies warm.

 

[wynn]

IOW if contemporary ideas on evolution got ousted by findings more in line with intelligent design (for example - such as glass ceilings drawing the limits of speciation due to to irreducible qualities of particular life forms) all that would be jeopardized are the careers of certain academics and the print runs of their texts.

I don't think so. There is an enormous emotional and ethical investment that many people have in the contemporary ideas of evolution. And people's emotional and ethical investements do not change easily. Therefore, it is not reasonable to expect that those people would change their views on evolution easily (even if they claim to "follow the evidence").

It could not happen that "contemporary ideas on evolution got ousted by findings more in line with intelligent design"; what could happen is that the contemporary ideas of evolution would be slightly changed. One of the requirements for new scientific discoveries is that they be in line with existing knowledge/theories, which is why there can be no actual revolution in science (ie. no ousting).

 

[phlogistician]

This kind of images have been so deeply ingrained into their minds that they cannot think of them as theories anymore.

Given that we have launched space vehicles and proven that the arrangement of planets and orbits is exactly as described, why wouldn't we consider it fact?

I also think you don't quite understand the word 'theory'. It doesn't necessarily imply ambiguity.

Also, evolution has been proven, via different methods. Doubting this makes your grasp of science look tenuous, and lessens your credibility in this debate. The Vatican now admit evolution is accepted, so others that profess differently really are urinating into the wind.

 

[gmilam]

Or in different pressurized environments?

Do you think it gives results that are vastly different from 100 degrees?

Define " vastly"...

http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/chaffee/highaltitude.html

 

[SnakeLord]

IOW in the scenario it is not a given that either of the two premises remain a fact of reality

If so, the question was answered.

1. If evolution did not occur then we do not exist.
2. If water does not boil at 100, we'd boil it at whatever it does boil at - indeed we might save on kettle bills.

The problem here is that you are still conflating two different notions. Explanation to follow.

The point of comparing the two premises is to show how one practically undermines everything and the other simply warrants changing the body of theoretical writing that is currently in vogue

It is important before attempting to make comparisons, that those comparisons are valid. In this case you have conflated two different notions. If the theory of natural selection is not one of the main processes of evolution, many things are deeply affected by it - as mentioned earlier. Likewise if the theory concerning the processes of water boiling are different, we would need to rethink physics but water would still boil as it does now.

if contemporary ideas on evolution got ousted by findings more in line with intelligent design (for example - such as glass ceilings drawing the limits of speciation due to to irreducible qualities of particular life forms) all that would be jeopardized are the careers of certain academics and the print runs of their texts

Not at all - although the need to completely redefine our understanding can hardly be dismissed in such blase manner. However, sticking to such comparison:

"If contemporary ideas on liquids boiling, (e.g the movement of molecules), got ousted by findings more in line with 'a supernatural agency does it' all that would be jeopardized are the careers of certain academics and print runs of their texts."

Hopefully you now see where your error lies.

Regards,

------

I think SL's mistake is that he does not see the theory of evolution as a theory (ie. merely a way of explaining the differences between living beings etc.), but as a fact

Unfortunately it is you making the mistake. Evolution is a fact and theories. Lightgigantics error here is in questioning the fact in one example and the theory in the other - hence it's not a valid comparison.

Regards,

 

[wynn]

Evolution - yeah right.

 

[SnakeLord]

I am unsure exactly what to say concerning your apparent issue with 'evolution', fatboyslim version.

Regards,

 

[Jan Ardena]

Evolution - yeah right.

Brilliant.
I'm converting to evolutionaryism.

jan.

 

[wynn]

Brilliant.
I'm converting to evolutionaryism.

The evolutionary idea that humans are no. 1 is certainly a considerable ego boost.

 

[SnakeLord]

The evolutionary idea that humans are no. 1 is certainly a considerable ego boost

I would be grateful if you could provide more information concerning this. I am unsure who it applies to or how. Many thanks.

P.S Your last couple of posts seem to have taken a nosedive into emotion rather than discussion. If there is anything I can do to help alleviate this apparent tension, do let me know.

 

[wynn]

I would be grateful if you could provide more information concerning this. I am unsure who it applies to or how. Many thanks.

P.S Your last couple of posts seem to have taken a nosedive into emotion rather than discussion. If there is anything I can do to help alleviate this apparent tension, do let me know.

You're gonna get an ulcer if you're gonna continue to be cynical like that, ya'know?

 

[SolusCado]

So let me get this straight... When you say you don't believe in evolution, what exactly do you not believe? I mean, flu viruses evolve every year. We see it on a regular basis. Do you not believe that occurs? Do you not believe organisms mutate? And sometimes those mutations yield to a boom in the population of that organism? Or are you saying that you don't think humans evolved? And if not, why not? What do you make of all the archeological (and at this point, genetic) evidence that we have?

 

[wynn]

So let me get this straight... When you say you don't believe in evolution, what exactly do you not believe?

I don't believe that we are our bodies.

I mean, flu viruses evolve every year. We see it on a regular basis. Do you not believe that occurs? Do you not believe organisms mutate? And sometimes those mutations yield to a boom in the population of that organism? Or are you saying that you don't think humans evolved? And if not, why not? What do you make of all the archeological (and at this point, genetic) evidence that we have?

What does any of that have to do with true happiness, unless, of course, one believes one is one's body and other living beings are their bodies?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

For any religious person here to become an atheist?

Is there any evidence that could be presented to change your minds?

Serious answers please.

EDIT: Atheists please feel free to answer the question of what it would take for you to become a theist.

Here's my position: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_kATGgg

If a sapient life form appeared in front of me that wasn't human then that would do it. If it was human looking but performed acts like turning a tree into solid diamond or instantly growing some war veteran"s lost limb back then that would do it as well.

 

[SolusCado]

If a sapient life form appeared in front of me that wasn't human then that would do it. If it was human looking but performed acts like turning a tree into solid diamond or instantly growing some war veteran"s lost limb back then that would do it as well.

I find it curious that atheists only accept a definition of God that is theologically inaccurate. Is it the lack of understanding that leads them to atheism, or a need to validate their atheism that leads them to cling to false theology?

 

[krreagan]

If a sapient life form appeared in front of me that wasn't human then that would do it. If it was human looking but performed acts like turning a tree into solid diamond or instantly growing some war veteran"s lost limb back then that would do it as well.

Clarks third law: "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."... How can you be certain that what you are looking at is not just advanced technology? You cannot!

This is the same mistake that more primitive societies made when Europeans "invaded" their lands. They thought of them as gods.

Careful what you believe...

KRR

 

[krreagan]

There is no evidence!

For any religious person here to become an atheist?

Is there any evidence that could be presented to change your minds?

Serious answers please.

EDIT: Atheists please feel free to answer the question of what it would take for you to become a theist.

Here's my position: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_kATGgg

I'm not sure there is any evidence that could persuade me. I can't think of anything that would make me believe unquestionably. I would always question any evidence and would assume first that it was just advanced tech before even considering that it was a gods work. A far more likely answer would be that an alien race with advanced tech was masquerading as a god.

KRR