Lausten, are you trying to explain that “nothing” might have a different meaning to these mathematical experts, than it has to regular folks engaged in everyday usage?
Lausten, are you trying to explain that “nothing” might have a different meaning to these mathematical experts, than it has to regular folks engaged in everyday usage?Yes. From what I know of people 100 years ago, "nothing" would be pretty much like empty space. But now we know space is not empty, there are particles and forces we are just beginning to understand. Now, whenever you see a model of the Big Bang, there's usually a ball on a black background. So, what's that black background? They never tell you. Well, "they" are a lot of people and you can search around for that answer, but don't expect it to be easy. Don't expect words like "time" to mean the same thing as what you see on your phone. They might tell you that the guy on top of the Empire State building is at a different time than you are. WTF? I can call that guy and ask him what time it is and it'll be the same. Screw "them".
I’ve told you that I was a firm advocate for decades and only in my mid twenties did I seek to explore several specific concerns and supposed weaknesses in the reasoning.Do you know how long a decade is? Because mid-twenties would not be enough time to advocate firmly for anything. Claiming to firmly know something is what we all do when we're young.
@holmes
Re. my name … I was in the middle of typing that up for you and will finish in a bit… My aunt came over to visit with my mom.
But 2 things, quick:
1/
(Bryan) I took this to mean you were somewhat sympathetic to that position as the reason you selected him as the basis for your name.Sorry, I thought I said my parents named me for him, not that I selected it for myself.
2/ So was this your response to my question about the applications of evolutionary theory? … I’m not sure why everyone working in all the fields of study listed would have to be deeply devoted to Darwin as a person in order to be utilizing findings that flowed from his premise, so I am confused.
Holmes: It is not dogma because you believe evolution there are some very good reasons for believing it, but it is dogma because deep within you it is regarded as a sacrosanct truth, there is simply no possibility that it could be wrong, absolutely none, the possibility cannot exist in your world.Here again, you are so busy telling me what I believe, that you've totally forgotten about the specific questions you were asked.
What I believe in is time and change cumulative and harmonic complexity. And Darwin seems to have done an excellent job of formalizing what we observe.
But I suppose Holmes doesn’t believe in time and cumulative change?
Basically, he’s right about my not being able to imagine a world without change and evolution - it’s a physical impossibility and if he spent anytime seriously learning about Earth’s rich history he too could appreciate those fundamentals.
Holmes, don’t be calling me ignorant when you are the one refusing to look at the evidence placed in front of you.
Holmes continues to present nothing but his self-certain opinion.
And if you doubt him,
He won’t answer your reasonable challenges, instead he’ll be able to tell you all about how smart he is and that he has read many many books and he had oh so much education, the best education, and that my decades* of proactive learning about evolution and Earth sciences and confronting and investigating his sort of challenges is as nothing compared to his divine shining light . . . or something like that ;- p)
But to offer good faith respectful forthright debate, there H . . . (never mind)
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com
Hey doc H, you wouldn’t have any revealing blogs, or YouTube channel, you’d like to share for our edification?
(Bryan) I took this to mean you were somewhat sympathetic to that position as the reason you selected him as the basis for your name. -- HolmesSorry, I thought I said my parents named me for him, not that I selected it for myself. – Tee
The jokes just sort of write themselves.
Sherlock Hol;mes said,The validity, correctness of a theory does not rest upon to what degree it yields benefits. For example Newtonian gravitation has likewise yielded huge benefits in terms of aeronautics, satellites, space projects, bridge design, clock design and so on. This is all very true and significant but it does not show the theory to be a true description of nature.
Yes it does, for Earth it is “sufficiently correct”. That’s why it is functional.
Newtonian gravitation is wrong, the inverse square law is wrong and superseded by relativity.At a different scale that's true. That does not invalidate Newtonian gravitation.
There are many observations that are consistent with Darwinism but consistent with is not the same as attributable to.When all natural growth phenomena are consistent, they are deemed to be attributable. Mathematics don't lie.
If you think the list of applications (a measure of utility) acts as evidence for the theories correctness then you are mistaken.The measurement of naturally occurring physical (mathematical) utilities do in fact act as evidence, if they can be artificially applied to obtain the same result.
The better way to discover truth or correctness is to look at the areas where the theory is at variance with expectations not only the areas where it is in accordance with them.Yes that's called "falsification" and is a required test for all hypotheses before they can be considered "theory" (a close approximation of natural universal relative values and functions.)
E = Mc^2 holds true everywhere in the universe. It must be so, else the universe would not look and behave as it does.
So have you ever looked to see if there are areas or observations that seem to be inconsistent with Darwinism?That's the point, there aren't any!!! Darwin discovered a natural mathematical truth in the natural functions of evolution and natural selection of better adaptation to the environment.
The same mathematical truths that allows for deterministic universal functions here on earth, apply everywhere in the universe. That’s why they are called Universal . There are plenty of relative "local’ truths as well. Point is, it’s all mathematical in ESSENCE.
Mathematics don’t lie.
This excellent overview of the mathematical nature of the universe s well worth watching.
The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44The Relativity of Wrong
By Isaac Asimov
I RECEIVED a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.)It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight.
I didn’t go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we now know the basic rules governing the universe, together with the gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What’s more, we have found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units of the physical universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930.
These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.
The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern “knowledge” is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. “If I am the wisest man,” said Socrates, “it is because I alone know that I know nothing.” the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.
My answer to him was, “John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”
The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that “right” and “wrong” are absolute; that everything that isn’t perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.
However, I don’t think that’s so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so.
When my friend the English literature expert tells me that in every century scientists think they have worked out the universe and are always wrong, what I want to know is how wrong are they? Are they always wrong to the same degree? Let’s take an example. …
https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Certainty brings knowledge and understanding. Knowledge and Understanding (hopefully) leads to wisdom of action.
OTOH, let’s counter that with “Why uncertainty is unsatisfactory”. Because it leads to doubts and inaction and that may become fatal.
The current political/public “uncertainty in spite of scientific certainty” has been partially responsible for our current unpreparedness in the face of the ever increasing effects of the current great extinction event, the Sixth Great Extinction or the Anthropocene Epoch
In the last half-billion years, life on Earth has been nearly wiped out five times—by such things as climate change, an intense ice age, volcanoes, and that space rock that smashed into the Gulf of Mexico 65 million years ago, obliterating the dinosaurs and a bunch of other species. These events are known as the Big Five mass extinctions, and all signs suggest we are now on the precipice of a sixth.Except this time, we have no one but ourselves to blame. According to a study published last week in Science Advances, the current extinction rate could be more than 100 times higher than normal—and that’s only taking into account the kinds of animals we know the most about. Earth’s oceans and forests host an untold number of species, many of which will probably disappear before we even get to know them.
Journalist Elizabeth Kolbert’s book The Sixth Extinction won this year’s Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction. We talked with her about what these new results might reveal for the future of life on this planet. Is there any chance we can put the brakes on this massive loss of life? Are humans destined to become casualties of our own environmental recklessness?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/06/150623-sixth-extinction-kolbert-animals-conservation-science-world/
Holmes: "So have you ever looked to see if there are areas or observations that seem to be inconsistent with Darwinism?"Write4U: That’s the point, there aren’t any!!! Darwin discovered a natural mathematical truth in the natural functions of evolution and natural selection of better adaptation to the environment.
The same mathematical truths that allows for deterministic universal functions here on earth, apply everywhere in the universe. That’s why they are called Universal . There are plenty of relative “local’ truths as well. Point is, it’s all mathematical in ESSENCE.
Mathematics don’t lie.
This excellent overview of the mathematical nature of the universe s well worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mve0UoSxTo
NOVA - Mathematics is the queen of Sciences
Very cool introduction to the connection between nature and mathematics. I think I’ll have to share that in my blog series.
I even have a title figured out - “Considering Nature’s Intelligent Design”
Write4U: Certainty brings knowledge and understanding. Knowledge and Understanding (hopefully) leads to wisdom of action.OTOH, let’s counter that with “Why uncertainty is unsatisfactory” because it leads to doubts and inaction and that may become fatal.
Okay, that’s good. My background has dealt with uncertainties, so I’m a bit twisted that way. Feeling certain or secure is something I’m not familiar with.
For instance, it’s near impossible for me promise a commitment to be somewhere in the future without tossing in - ‘The good lord willing’ though that really freaks out and confuses people who know me, so I also have the more politically correct “Good Providence Willing”. Life and lives can change in an instant, happens all the time.
Still, tell me more about what you’re trying to say there.
Write4U: The current political/public “uncertainty in spite of scientific certainty” has been partially responsible for our current unpreparedness in the face of the ever increasing effects of the current great extinction event, the Sixth Great Extinction or the Anthropocene EpochNo, I'd suggest the current public ignorance is a direct result of Democratic and liberal rationalist types being woefully unawareness of the power political hostile take-over being planned. Along with having no public information/communication wherewithal so liberals are currently rather clueless, or to put it more starkly, I think they got no soul. We've allowed a self-certain passionate faith-blinded madness to take hold and blossom. Political promises and asking for more donations ain't what it's going to take.
While corporate interests learned how to manipulate the truth; weaponize the slander of perfectly respectful competent productive honest scientists along with their truthful findings; while behaving with utter ruthlessness and contempt for the rest of humanity. The stupidity and self-destructiveness has been incomprehensible.
But, uh, but you and I, we’ve been through that https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/12/our-dysfunctional-public-dialogue.html ;- )
1) Uncertainties vs. known Physical CertaintiesIt is a disservice to constantly allow trivial uncertainties to become the focal point of the public discussion.
In real life when we get mired or overwhelmed by increasingly complex situations, we stop, back off a little, get reoriented with the big picture, reacquaint ourselves with what we do know for certain, then move forward again.
I’m not saying ignore uncertainties! I’m saying keep reminding us of the overriding fundamental certainties! Thus putting contrarian trivial pursuits into real world perspective.
planned = played out
@holmes posts the original question … to which I ACTUALLY RESPONDED and HE went off the rails
(⊙_◎)
@holmes
Looks like this Casey dude is all about Biblical Creationism.
Can you find anti-evolution scientists who are not Fundamentalist Christians?
http://www.caseyluskin.com/christianity.htm
If we’re just doing links now:
Icon of Obfuscation - Luskin gets a rebuttal then is rebutted in the box on the right
Sherlock Holmes, I think the list of Christians who are in science or technology might convey the opposite message you intend it to.
Any list of the number of notable people in those fields has to be sufficiently insignificant compared to the complete list, in order to be compiled at all.
There is no comparable list of atheists in scientist or technology because it would be too massive and would probably grow too fast to be practically useful.
Fortunately there is a list of scientists “with the given name Stephen or Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who “support evolution”.” [from Wikipedia.] I’ve highlighted the relevant portion of the following quote:
...at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which it turns out is roughly 1 percent of scientists,[1] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, with about 54% of the listed Steves being biologists.[3]. The "List of Steves" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" who have signed the list.[4] As of March 25, 2019[update], Project Steve has 1,439 signatories"The first few lines of the official Project Steve website are exactly what I was saying above.
@holmes
What bearing does this have on the validity or want thereof of the scientific analysis? Science is objective (or strives to be)It has no bearing as long for people who won't feel religiously conflicted by whatever they discover.
The Roman Catholic Church accepted the theory of evolution in its schools and colleges in the mid-1960s. Most Orthodox, mainline Protestants and Jews are fine with it. Buddhists, Hindus etc. have no conflict with it.
CERTAIN Christians, though, feel a literal interpretation of the Bible as central to their faith. They can not be objective in these fields of study.
@holmes
if you truly believe that the legitimacy of a scientific discovery depends on the personal beliefs of the scientist then you’ll need to support that with evidence Tee. Well, this is one, but you won't care. I saw a screening of this film. It was fascinating. It went through ID errors with point-by-point refutationsOkay
JUDGEMENT DAY: INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON TRIALJudgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial is a documentary on the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District—which concentrated on the question of whether or not intelligent design could be viewed as science and taught in school science class. (2006)
.NOVA presents the arguments by lawyers and expert witnesses in riveting detail and provides an eye-opening crash course on questions such as “What is evolution?” and “Is intelligent design a scientifically valid alternative?” Kitzmiller v. Dover was the first legal test of intelligent design as a scientific theory, with the plaintiffs arguing that it is a thinly veiled form of creationism, the view that a literal interpretation of the Bible accounts for all observed facts about nature.
During the trial, lawyers for the plaintiffs showed that evolution is one of the best-tested and most thoroughly confirmed theories in the history of science, and that its unresolved questions are normal research problems–the type that arise in any flourishing scientific field.
U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ultimately decided for the plaintiffs, writing in his decision that intelligent design “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”
I saw a screening … it was very interstiting. They refuted ID step by step.
.
Oh, and BTW, @holmes…
Stop judging me.
Of course its much easier for you to say “Ahh, he believes in God, therefore I can safely disregard anything he says that is at odd with the prevailing scientific views” that’s a nice cozy way to deal with this, I do understand.No. You don't understand. At all.
I have NO problem whatsoever with MOST Christians in MOST fields of science.
Screw you for judging me. Stop.
@holmes
Re my name. …
My grandmother was named for William Jennings Bryan (her middle name). She was born in 1900, during his 2nd of 3 runs for US President. Then, my folks named me for both my grandmother and him.
My folks aren’t religious. It was more about politics than religion.
Yes, he was the attorney who prosecuted high school teacher John Scopes for teaching evolution in the infamous 1925 “Monkey Trial” in Tennessee.
The trial was staged. Not bothering to go into it. But both sides presented lots of lies and bullshit. There was no “good” side. It was a PR stunt.
And yes, Bryan believed the teaching of evolution would destroy the country. He really did say (among other things) that he would rather get rid of all the schools than allow evolution to be taught in them.
But there is a nuance. While he WAS a very conservative Christian, he was less concerned with Bible literalism than he was about “social Darwinism.”
He was an anti-oligarchy populist Progressive. Basically he worked his career around getting more power for working people and limiting power for the uber-wealthy.
His POLITICAL Christian views would be “liberal” today … pro-welfare programs, pro-Union. He was also pro-women’s suffrage, DECADES before women got the vote.
He hated Evolution because he interpreted it as “Survival of the Fittest,” and believed that if Evolution became the accepted view, then the wealthy would become even more powerful and workers would lose more rights.
I have always included my middle name in pretty much everything I put my name on. Especially over the past decade (and until 5 years ago I was a Christian), because of the irony that if he came back today, he would be shocked that it’s the Fundamentalist Christians who oppose Darwinism but who turned out to be the Social Darwinists.
He would be more like Bernie than Trump.