Hi,

I read this thread with a degree of amusement..as a science teacher I have to teach the theories of:

evolution....darwinism....lamarkism...creationism...and intelligent design...then get the kids to compare and contrast each one....no wonder they seem confused when they leave my room......but they have all the facts....ooops I mean 'theories'!:D

Crabapple xx

Oh, I see, looking back. It was actually Boson Higgs who hadn't put an endquote on his quote of Muzone. So my quote of the whole was hard to follow. I've now put in Higgs's missing endquote. This is in post 25.

And I've corrected Boson Higgs' post #21 to effect the same. Should hopefully all read a little clearer now.

Hi,

I read this thread with a degree of amusement..as a science teacher I have to teach the theories of:

evolution....darwinism....lamarkism...creationism...and intelligent design...then get the kids to compare and contrast each one....no wonder they seem confused when they leave my room......but they have all the facts....ooops I mean 'theories'!:D

Crabapple xx

That's quite a list, and it's revealing that there is such a longish list, not just evolution. The list is even longer. Not that these would be taught in school, but I actually give the ideas credence (no need to dial 999 for me :p): I would add a sixth - alien cross-breeding with earlier homanids (given that untold thousands of people cross-culturally report alien abductions and impregnations and a later taking of the unborn hybrid, which become better-recalled memories under hypnosis) - and a seventh - given the theory that there have been long-lost previously advanced human civilisations, now forgotten but in myth, ancient cloning by humans. Are some species man-made? (Why is it that, as we are told, pigs are closer to man all-round than any other creature? Are they a bizarre ancient experiment?)

So that's six theories on top of evolution. Perhaps none of them are exclusive, but the true story could be a mix over time of a number of them?

V

The fact of the matter

I'd just like to point out that there is a common delusion that a fact is something that is objectively true or beyond refute in any way whatsoever. A fact is merely something that becomes accepted as being true. Sometimes what were thought to be "facts" are found to be not quite as factual as they once were thought to be.

The only fact that is beyond refute, is that all facts are best guesses, based on available evidence, theory and knowledge base of the society that deems a statement to be beyond question. This is a product of convention of the society that holds any given statement to be true.

However all conventional statements do not have the same value. For example if it was claimed that human beings were descended from aliens interbreeding with early hominids, our society would consider that there was limited evidence for this theory and not give it much credence. Generally those who would claim this theory to be factual would not be taken very seriously. On the other hand the claim that humans have evolved from early hominids would generally be considered to be a theory that is well supported by sound interpretation of the available evidence. In fact, in all but sections of the population that have strongly opposing beliefs supported by little evidence, the theory that evolution has taken place would be considered "fact" on the basis of the evidence and knowledge base built by our culture's scientific exploration of the world in which we find ourselves.

There ain't no such thing as objective truth... even if reality isn't just a product of some kind of mass hysteria. I know it's out there, but I've still no idea what on earth it it really is.

Norbu

And I've corrected Boson Higgs' post #21 to effect the same. Should hopefully all read a little clearer now.

You mean you deleted it!
Every picture tells a story.

:rolleyes:

The only fact that is beyond refute, is that all facts are best guesses, based on available evidence, theory and knowledge base of the society that deems a statement to be beyond question.

There are facts that are beyond dispute - the term "fact" means a pragmatic truth, a statement that be checked, verified. So, for example, it is a fact that: 2 + 2 = 4

It could not be 5, 22, or anything else, no matter how many people believed it, or were persuaded to believe it (ie by religious or state brainwashing). If you don't believe this fact, then you are welcome to count for yourself, and then you will see that there is no mistake.

In the same way, it's a fact that Elvis is dead. You may choose to believe that he's not dead (ie stories of his death are lies), or that he is alive and well in heaven. Now, we may not all have actually seen Elvis's dead body to be certain, but the second hand info is so overwhelming, that we can accept as fact that Elvis is dead - and if you were determined, you could dig his grave and do a DNA or other checks to make sure!

Is Elvis in heaven? Even if millions of people believe that he is alive and well heaven, this would never be a fact because we can't check that.

Is there evolution (ie change in genetic material over time)? Yes, and this is a fact, a fact beyond dispute. No matter if the entire world does not believe it, it is still fact because it is true, and you can easily verify that it is.

Is the biblical creationism a fact? ie, did the biblical God, portrayed as an angry old man with a beard and stick, manufacture the world with a "woosh"?

No, this is not a fact, even though there are billions of people that believe that this is true.

Did He "woosh" the earth (flat earth) into existence in a day and made it the center if the world? Did He "woosh" the sun to rise and fall above the flat earth? Did He "woosh" the plants and animals into existence? Did he "woosh" man (adam) to appear on earth and to look just like Himself?

No, none of these are facts - they can not be verified as correct, they are beliefs only.

There are facts that are beyond dispute - the term "fact" means a pragmatic truth, a statement that be checked, verified. So, for example, it is a fact that: 2 + 2 = 4

Dear James,

For me to accept that 2+2=4 is irrefutably true in all conditions (is that a fair definition of what you mean by a "fact?") I must first understand what you mean by all these little symbols you've consigned to script. What is 2? What is +? What is 4? and what is =?

Of course I know what you mean as I too was brainwashed by my teachers. The difference is I now can see that they were brainwasted too. Lets take the symbol 2. I was taught, like you, that 2 was 1+1. Now for me to know what 2 is I must know what 1 and + represent. For me to know what these symbols represent I must know what they are. Can you tell me James?

As it happens I don't believe in the symbol + or the symbol = quite as religiously as you do. I believe they are part of a language that we humans have created that has got self defining rules. I have never seen "=" or "+" or a 2 or 4 or even a 1 for that matter in nature or even in my dreams. I find it very hard to accept that these are facts?

Now, just for the sake of a little interesting discussion, I'll just accepty your hypothesis that 2+2 is a fact (and that a fact is true in all conditions). Do you think 2+2=4 was true before the big bang and in the miniscule moments after the big bang?

If you don't believe this fact, then you are welcome to count for yourself, and then you will see that there is no mistake.

Your are very kind James. As I have explained, I also did learn the rules of this language you call counting but have my doubts about it's value in all circumstances. If you have read this string you will perahs remember my earlier post which argues that some thing have to come out of nothing and if this was ever the case this must also be possible all ways... Eureka, perhaps we have found a fact at last! That there can never be a condition that is true for all conditions... That it is a fact that there is not such thing as a fact!!!

Is Elvis in heaven? Even if millions of people believe that he is alive and well heaven, this would never be a fact because we can't check that.

In the same way, it's a fact that Elvis is dead.

Now you are just being silly! I bet you don't believe in Faeries either!

Is Elvis in heaven? Even if millions of people believe that he is alive and well heaven, this would never be a fact because we can't check that.

Only if you're a logical positivist. And I think the time for the delusion that all things must be testable under scientific conditions for them to be notions worthy of consideration, has passed. At least on this forum I have a suspicion that people would agree that this is the case. I mean those of us who do believe in Faeries can but only have a giggle at the naievity of logical positivists.

Refering to Elivs being in Heaven and other beliefs:

No, none of these are facts - they can not be verified as correct, they are beliefs only.

I "think" it is a fact that this is a belief that you hold. But I also think that you are a little naieve to think so.

Norbu

The only fact that is beyond refute, is that all facts are best guesses, based on available evidence, theory and knowledge base of the society that deems a statement to be beyond question. This is a product of convention of the society that holds any given statement to be true.
Norbu

Well put Norbu

You only have to study the history of 'fact' based science to see this, many things held as indisputable truth in say the 18th century are no regarded as naive fancy - whilst still remaining in the realm of 'scientific' definitions, I would say that a 'fact' is a representation of the sum of accumulated human knowledge on a specific subject at a particular time and is a dynamic description not a static one.

There are facts that are beyond dispute - the term "fact" means a pragmatic truth, a statement that be checked, verified. So, for example, it is a fact that: 2 + 2 = 4

It depends upon what the '2' s are, if they are whole apples then I agree but what if they are 2 bowls of cooked apples which are added ? You end up with one big bowl when you add them together.

Also in mathematical terms 2.4 would be rounded to 2 but 2.4 +2.4 = 4.8, which would be rounded to 5

In chemistry, 4 molecues may react together to give 1 molecule, or 2 molecules may react to give 4

:nature-smiley-008:

Hi Norbu,

I have a friend who loves his philosophy. His writing is a bit like yours, but much more dense (removed from layman's language and understanding). I ignore his articles, and bits of his emails :p , and just talk to him. I gotta say that I've chosen to have little interest in this philosophical delving into whether everything is true or rather "what is truth?" - "would a tree still fall down if nobody was there to hear it?" or whatever. I find it leads nowhere, and in this thread is going way off-tack IMHO.

Is the biblical creationism a fact? ie, did the biblical God, portrayed as an angry old man with a beard and stick, manufacture the world with a "woosh"?

It's worth noting, mind, that until recent centuries and the rise of Protestantism, Genesis and its Creation myths were recognised by Christians for what they were: a compounding of more than one stories, which are all allegorical anyway. Christians, as many in other faiths, had a mystical and basically esoteric understanding of God as The All-Perfect One Living Being Itself. They didn't at all believe in an old man with a beard (paintings of such were realised to be depictions of the unfathomable), and knew the Genesis Creation stories were not literal. The literal train of thought is quite recent, and doesn't relate to Christianity as it usually has been at all.

V

And I think the time for the delusion that all things must be testable under scientific conditions for them to be notions worthy of consideration, has passed.
Norbu

Scientific conditions are those devised by scientists to validate their methods and processes.
They give answers in the language of science to questions posed in the language of science - so if that suits your purpose then use them, but when we get down to discussions on 'truth' ,'faith' and 'awareness' the language of science may not be the only one to consider......

:nature-smiley-008:

Being a very simple sole (a lot of these discussions are way over my head) I like to 'keep it simple'

Say 'evolution versas Christian beliefs'.

What is easier in my mind to believe. The whole planet and all its animals, plants, insects, people came via the amoeba or God created the world in 7 days.

Each seems totally unlikely but I come down on the side of God.

What is easier in my mind to believe. The whole planet and all its animals, plants, insects, people came via the amoeba or God created the world in 7 days.

Each seems totally unlikely but I come down on the side of God.

It is good to get back to basics, I agree!

First of all, think of how God created the life in this world? Why not consider that God did it in the way that science can indeed see, but not understand the processes forcing it to work? In other words, life was created both by God and also his method was maybe - just maybe - via amoeba? (Personally I don't believe that's how humans came to be on earth, but all the same I believe that some scientific theories are true of some facets of creation.

Secondly, the "seven Days of Creation" were until recent centuries always realised to be allegorical. These are not the seven days of the week, LOL! God didn't work a 9-to-5 and then took Sunday off! No, the "seven Days" are just an allegorical and not literal way of referring to seven stages through which all Creation takes place. You can even break down creations we ourselves do - anything we do - in our lives into seven stages of how we do it.

In mystical Judaism, and Genesis does come from the period of Jewish rule, it was fully realised that the "seven days" meant seven stages, having no time-frame on them. The real mystics understood that it was all a key as to how we too can create in our lives through these same stages. (The stages are there in the first pages of Genesis.)

V

I have a friend who loves his philosophy. His writing is a bit like yours, but much more dense (removed from layman's language and understanding). I ignore his articles, and bits of his emails :p , and just talk to him. I gotta say that I've chosen to have little interest in this philosophical delving into whether everything is true or rather "what is truth?" - "would a tree still fall down if nobody was there to hear it?" or whatever. I find it leads nowhere, and in this thread is going way off-tack IMHO.

Hi V,

I was just having a little fun!

But seriously, I do think that there is only one position that is defensible, if you believe that philosophy leads nowhere and that is the position held by Siddharta Gautama. He refused to engage in metaphysical speculation saying it was worthless. He did however refute the existence of the eternal soul and Brahman for this very reason.

You will find that philosophy will be a dead end if you do not wish to see the inevitable conclusion it comes to, when considering the nature of facts. But I do find that, without this philosophical context, all assertions of truth and counter-truth just end up being a bit of an exchange of rants.

Norbu

PS not need to read this one either :p

Being a very simple sole (a lot of these discussions are way over my head) I like to 'keep it simple'

Say 'evolution versas Christian beliefs'.

What is easier in my mind to believe. The whole planet and all its animals, plants, insects, people came via the amoeba or God created the world in 7 days.

Each seems totally unlikely but I come down on the side of God.

Venetian explores the possibility for both these ideas to be true. They can be, it just depends on what you mean.

It is a great mistake to confuse words for reality.

Norbu

'And I also don't actually believe we descended from apes.'

No David, we DIDN'T descend from apes; we had our own 'twig of evolution', which was along the same 'branch' as apes.

Think of evolution as a tree, with a common root at the base, a trunk, branches and twigs.

Patsy.

'And I also don't actually believe we descended from apes.'

No David, we DIDN'T descend from apes; we had our own 'twig of evolution', which was along the same 'branch' as apes.

Think of evolution as a tree, with a common root at the base, a trunk, branches and twigs.

Patsy.

TBH, I also consider that scientists are pretty fallible human beings, and have no concept that we literally might have "appeared" from nowhere but the Divine. For I have the sense that the miraculous is real, and a real part of existence. I certainly hold no faith in so-called science as it actually is. There are precedents for believing in "appearances" of new species from the unseen, such as in The Book of Enoch, in which is described the incarnation (through physical people, or mothers, true) of an entire new race of angels. They went on to become, and, it is said, still are, part of our political/economic system.

V

'Also for instance, we are supposed to have evolved from apes. Again if so, why are there still apes.'

OB - see my reply to David.

Hope this makes it more clear.

Patsy.

'There are precedents for believing in "appearances" of new species from the unseen, such as in The Book of Enoch, in which is described the incarnation (through physical people, or mothers, true) of an entire new race of angels. They went on to become, and, it is said, still are, part of our political/economic system. '

Oh Good Lord! THAT explains a lot.....!

:D:D:D

'TBH, I also consider that scientists are pretty fallible human beings, and have no concept that we literally might have "appeared" from nowhere but the Divine. '

That concept could apply to all life on Earth, not only mankind. It is somewhat of a miracle that any life at all 'got started', considering the fiery way the Earth was born. Luckily for us, life did evolve to make this planet a very special one.

Patsy.

I find it quite amusing that most people here are certain they are correct.

I guess I am no different in as much as I believe God created the earth and everything in it, but as none of us were here hundred of thousands of years ago, we can only surmise.....there is no proof.

I personally am a strong believer in evolution, and find it impossible to accept creationism as a valid alternative for the simple fact that we have fossils of a myriad of stages in the development of modern day animals etc.

I am in the middle of watching Religulous at the moment, and if you haven't seen it, it's worth checking out if for no other reason than to see the 'creationist museum'. It features human children playing alongside dinosaurs, and a saddled triceratops. It is hilarious (to me)!!

I'm not rubbishing anyone elses opinions - if everyone had the same, it would be pretty dull!

Peace

I don’t have an issue with evolution,
I readily accept it – it makes total sense
…but I just can't for the life of me see why for most people the ‘theory of evolution’ and the ‘theory of life being ‘consciously’ brought into existence’ – just absolutely must be mutually exclusive?

(Errm...as an aside, isn’t it funny that to say the “theory of evolution” you jusss always gotta mention ‘da dude’ himself anyway :o)

.

Iit's worth checking out if for no other reason than to see the 'creationist museum'. It features human children playing alongside dinosaurs, and a saddled triceratops. It is hilarious (to me)!!

I once met a man, in Athens, who insisted that he "knew" that God existed (at a time when I disbelieved). After a discussion in which he got quite heated, he stated that he'd seen God. "You've seen God?" "Yes," he replied in all (manic) seriousness. "The man, Charlton, recieved the Ten Commandments from God, and I saw it on film." :rolleyes:

Likewise, in pushed into a corner (I don't feel I am) I'm going to reply that I can perfectly accept the saddled triceratops, etc. Well, maybe not saddled! But I saw this co-existence as a child. With Ursula Andress, a very pleasing sight it was too. :p

V

I don’t have an issue with evolution,
I readily accept it – it makes total sense
…but I just can't for the life of me see why for most people the ‘theory of evolution’ and the ‘theory of life being ‘consciously’ brought into existence’ – just absolutely must be mutually exclusive?

(Errm...as an aside, isn’t it funny that to say the “theory of evolution” you jusss always gotta mention ‘da dude’ himself anyway :o)

.

This is the crux, isn't it? Take electromagnetism. It's one general phenomenon which is expressed in many ways, and which is created in myriad ways both by nature and by intelligent beings (us). Similarly, evolution doesn't mean all changes to life happened in that one way. I've no doubt at all that evolution exists. But the fact that it does, does not mean that all alterations of species, or even the appearance of species, happened that way. Hence it's only a theory.

We are now altering the DNA of flora and fauna all the time - everything from GM crops to "super-mice" which are far stronger and live much longer. For centuries we've also bred animals - everything from better and stronger horses to ridiculous little dogs (with apologies to owners! :)). Would a skeptical future civilisation know that these didn't evolve, but were created in just the last twenty years (in the case of genetic manipulation) and by ourselves, a civilisation they have no record of?

Nope! They'd be having maybe the same variety of views we are now, the evolutionists being just as certain of themselves. You really cannot know just what wonders and secrets the past does hold.

V