quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Does that mean that man did NOT evolve from apes? Not necessarily. They very well could have! But right now, without sufficient and definitive evidence, it is only a theory that some have FAITH is true.
1. We didn't evolve from apes. Apes and humans share a close common ancestor.
2. In terms of what constitutes 'sufficient and definitive evidence,' evolution is right up there with, say, germ theory and plate tectonics and heliocentrism. We actually have more direct evidence of evolutionary theory than we have of most astronomical science, which infers most of its data and findings and makes its discoveries (like 'what is a neutron star?' or 'what is a magnetaur?') successfully through correlation.
Saying that evolution lacks definitive evidence is kind of an argumentative dead-end. I mean that as advice, really. The amount of evidence that exists is staggering. To claim that evidence is paltry enough to make it a matter of faith is an argumentative mistake that can, at best, lead to a drubbing in counterpoint.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:it's like asserting "a tree exists over there, but just for me."
But that can be true.
Certainly, subjective perception of the environment leads to unique conceptions, some of which even have objectively observable effects. Learned helplessness is probably the most classic example of this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: So, I figured I'd check my assertion on indeterminacy because it has been a bit. Here's what I pulled from wikipedia as the first google result for "non deterministic phenomena in physics":
quote:However, in the natural world the electrons normally remain in an uncertain, non-deterministic "smeared" (wave-particle wave function) orbital path around or "through" the nucleus, defying classical electromagnetism.[7]
Urk. That's what happens when people try to explain physics without using math. Sorry, this is just wrong. There is no orbit, deterministic or otherwise. There is a wave function specifying the electron density at each point; the wave function develops according to the deterministic Schrödinger (or Dirac if you want relativistic effects) equation, which is a nice ordinary differential equation, no randomness. (Well, not necessarily nice in the sense of 'easily soluble', of course.)
You are now using Wiki hand-waving popular explanations to argue with math. I suggest that you're in a bit of a hole and the correct action is to stop digging.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
No, it can't. A tree exists or it does not. You may, in your own internal context, not be aware of the actual state of this hypothetical tree, but that does not affect the actual state of the tree in communal reality.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'd think so, but sometimes I need to use it to distinguish what's really "real" from what people insist is personally "real."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Either your god exists or it doesn't; to assert otherwise is madness.
For personal perceptual contexts this is obviously the case.
It is also entirely possible that it is ultimately the truth.
It's not madness. It's just not logical. That doesn't mean it isn't so. There are mature, meaningful philosophical systems that support A and !A both being true.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nu, but aren't you then allowing them to frame the discussion by apparently admitting the existence of two separate realities? When your argument is that there is only one, you ought not to undermine it by your language.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would contend that faith IS an experiment. Just as a scientist attempts to prove a theory, so to does the religious individual. They read, learn, and ponder the data. They come to their own conclusion whether it is true or not. It does not mean that another person will come to the same conclusion, but for that person it is true.
There's different types of experiments. What you are talking about can be said to be an experiment for some definitions of the world, but it is qualitatively different from proper scientific experiments.
There's a big word, epistemology, which pretty much means, what we can know we know. I think one of the big problems that people get into with pushing their philosophy, whether it be religious or strict materialism, is that they don't understand and very often far overstep the bounds of the relevant epistemologies. It sounds like you would likely benefit from learning more about science not as a series of statements that people in lab coats say, but as a system of thought, as a way of knowing what we can know.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Either your god exists or it doesn't; to assert otherwise is madness.
It's not madness. It's just not logical. That doesn't mean it isn't so. There are mature, meaningful philosophical systems that support A and !A both being true.
Ok, I can see your brain has rotted to the point where only Darwin can help. I challenge you to a duel. I'll give you an advantage: You can use a gun, while I'll use a sword. My sword, however, will be made using the axioms of physics; your gun should be made so that it both is and is not loaded.
This has the additional advantage of being an experimental life-after-death test for you; two experiments for the price of one, great in these times when the NSF is rather strapped. I'm sure we can get a grant.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree that this is necessarily true. It's an axiom.
Tell you what. You spend some time in the reality where it's not true, then come back and tell me what it was like. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree that this is necessarily true. It's an axiom.
Tell you what. You spend some time in the reality where it's not true, then come back and tell me what it was like.
How could I tell? It is entirely possible that this is a reality where that is not true.
edit:
Like I said, whether religious or materialist, it is important to know what you actually can know and to not mistake you believing something with it actually being definitely true.
The irony for me being that in the areas that I'm most concerned with, I choose to structure such that believing something does make it true (with some really heavy qualifications on what believing something means).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree that this is necessarily true. It's an axiom.
Tell you what. You spend some time in the reality where it's not true, then come back and tell me what it was like.
Dude, at this point, you've got two choices: Either assume they'll eventually get over it, or go for the duel. How old is comrade Squicky, anyway? Are we talking just out of college and still impressed by freshman philosophy classes, or is this an ingrained vice of an older man set in his ways?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he could prove his epistemologically un-provable axioms, but even I, who can countenance a world where A being true does not necessarily mean that !A is false without going mad, am pretty sure that's impossible.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The long and short of it is that I am amazed with the defensive mechanisms you rely on to desperately try not to have to back away from poorly postulated statements you have made regarding the nature of evidence.
The 'quantum trees' bit we seem to have wandered into as a result is just remarkable.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you're saying that the statement a tree exists or does not (or rather the abstract formulation A is true means that !A is not true) is not an axiom?
Also, which poorly postulated statements would those be?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For my part, I'll freely concede that the statement "a statement cannot be simultaneously true and false in the same particulars" is axiomatic. You are welcome to demonstrate to me the failures of that axiom to properly model reality at your leisure, at which point I will gladly accept alternatives. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: So, you're saying that the statement a tree exists or does not (or rather the abstract formulation A is true means that !A is not true) is not an axiom?
No.
quote:Also, which poorly postulated statements would those be?
Here's a hint: they resulted in you essentially ragequitting a portion of this discussion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
1: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit 2: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference 3: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
So sure, the statement that a tree cannot exist for one person without simultaneously existing for everyone else is an axiom, and meets all 3 definitions. Why are you saying that like it's a bad thing... there's no way to prove is without having every individual in existence verify in the same instance that the tree exists, but pretty much *everyone* (prior to this thread I would have just said everyone) knows the tree doesn't blink off into neverneverland when you aren't there...
And if this statement wasn't generally accepted (thus axiomatic) one would never have to pay a tree trimmer or a landscaper etc... you'd just claim the tree doesn't exist in your "personal reality" and therefore they clearly haven't performed any service that require payment.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If God exists in any way that is meaningful, science can study God. It is only the non-meaningful things that science cannot study.
quote:Define meaningful.
quote:Has a perceptible effect.
If God resurrected Christ from the dead 2,000 years ago and if that event triggered the rise of Christianity, then it would be correct to say that event had a huge perceptible effect on the course of history and future events. However, it is also true that science cannot directly study the resurrection of Christ because it is not repeatable. Therefore, it is not true that science can study anything that has a perceptible effect.
The same could be said for countless one-time events. Hitler's 10th birthday party may have dramatically altered history in some way, but there's no way under the scientific method to go back and study what sort of perceptible effect it had. Repeatability is a requirement in science, and that requirement limits what it can study.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit, I was surprised when I opened this thread to see KoM, Tom, and Samprimary arguing against Mr. Squicky on something.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
An indirect study of the resurrection of Christ IS an indirect study of religious epistemology; if science has evidence that the resurrection happened, it has indirect evidence that God probably exists....
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, if science finds evidence of a resurrection, then science has found evidence that resurrection exists for some unknown reason.
As you have always done over the years, you are thinking as someone who clearly believes that everyone in the world is dying to believe in God, only if they can be given a good enough excuse. But faith in God is not a default mode of thinking, and if it is a default mode of thinking for some, that in itself is not good evidence of its efficacy.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:An indirect study of the resurrection of Christ IS an indirect study of religious epistemology...
Indeed. And what that study tells us is that religious epistemology is pretty much worthless.
Regardless of what the study tells us... If we are including "indirect study of X" as meaning that X is within the sphere of science, then religious epistemology, including God's existence, would be within the sphere of science. If we don't include "indirect study of X" as meaning that X is within the sphere of science, it is clear that there are many things (particularly in history) that have perceptible effects which are not within the sphere of science. Thus, it's our choice: Either science cannot study everything with a perceptible effect, or science can study religious epistemology.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:religious epistemology, including God's existence, would be within the sphere of science
Not quite. I see now we had a failure of communication; a scientific study of the historical data of the Ressurrection counts as an indirect assessment of religious epistemology -- but it is not, however, informed by religious epistemology.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or, more concretely: That the scientific method can be used to judge the effectiveness of revelation and prophecy does not mean that revelation or prophecy produce data in accordance with the scientific method. However, that could follow from a thorough and favorable scientific assessment of revelation and prophecy.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If God resurrected Christ from the dead 2,000 years ago and if that event triggered the rise of Christianity, then it would be correct to say that event had a huge perceptible effect on the course of history and future events.
So you would argue thusly:
"If a woman committed witchcraft on a baby, and that event cause the woman to be executed, then it would be correct to say that her witchcraft had a perceptible effect on the world."
Do you see the problem here? The argument assumes that witchcraft is real, but it's not. People may wrongly believe it's real, and do perceptible harm based on it, but witchcraft is still make-believe. Imaginary things don't actually do anything in the world. It's only people's belief in them, and the actions that flow from those totally wrong beliefs that have effects.
quote:However, it is also true that science cannot directly study the resurrection of Christ because it is not repeatable. Therefore, it is not true that science can study anything that has a perceptible effect.
Again, are you arguing that witchcraft has a perceptible effect? Why can't science study witchcraft?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not quite. I see now we had a failure of communication; a scientific study of the historical data of the Ressurrection counts as an indirect assessment of religious epistemology -- but it is not, however, informed by religious epistemology.
That's what I meant as well. You're saying that science could potentially offer an assessment of questions like "does God exist?"
quote:Again, are you arguing that witchcraft has a perceptible effect? Why can't science study witchcraft?
No, I'm not arguing anything about witchcraft. Although IF witchcraft had a perceptible effect, it seems like science could study it in the way Tom is suggesting.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're saying that science could potentially offer an assessment of questions like "does God exist?"
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking whether science can evaluate the question, or offer an answer to it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I'm not arguing anything about witchcraft. Although IF witchcraft had a perceptible effect, it seems like science could study it in the way Tom is suggesting.
Well then, what is the difference between witchcraft and the resurrection of Jesus?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, are you arguing that witchcraft has a perceptible effect? Why can't science study witchcraft?
No, I'm not arguing anything about witchcraft.
You do this all the time. You make a general argument, I point out a specific negative consequence of that argument, and then you say "Oh, I wasn't talking about that specific thing". Well, my examples are pertinant, and you can't ever explain why they are not. They are unpleasant to you, I know. But honesty demands that you accept them, refute them, or concede that the underlying reasoning you presented is flawed.
I took your argument, nearly word for word, and made a small number of substitutions, leaving your essential reasoning intact. So, do you accept your own argument, or not? I'll do it again, keeping closer to your exact wording:
"If a woman made a baby sick with witchcraft, and if that event caused the woman to be executed, then it would be correct to say that event (her use of witchcraft to make a baby sick) had a perceptible effect the course of history and future events."
What do you think of the soundness and usefullness of this argument? Remember, the whole point of the discussion is how to figure out whether a particular thing exists or not. What does this argument tell you about the reality of the event in question (the use of witchcraft to make a baby ill)?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking whether science can evaluate the question, or offer an answer to it?
(1) You said science can study the Resurrection (indirectly) (2) I think it's fairly safe to assume (unless you disagree) that learning the Resurrection happened (and whether it happened like the Bible says it did) would be considered a significant material piece of evidence regarding God's existence or at least the afterlife. Given these two things, I'm thinking it sounds like it follows that science could, in such a case, offer material evidence that would to some degree imply an answer to the question of whether God exists. I just want to clarify if you agree or not.
quote:Well then, what is the difference between witchcraft and the resurrection of Jesus?
For the purpose of this example, they'd both work just as well, so I'm not really asserting a difference here.
quote:You do this all the time. You make a general argument, I point out a specific negative consequence of that argument, and then you say "Oh, I wasn't talking about that specific thing".
That's because the specific consequence you propose almost never follows from any argument I'm actually making. Usually it follows from some argument you've put in my mouth that I don't agree with.
In this case, I'm not arguing about what does or does not in fact have perceptible effects. So I am not taking a position on whether witchcraft does or does not have a perceptible effect.
What I am discussing is: Does Tom believe that IF something has a perceptible effect THEN can science always study it? I asked him specifically about an example of the Resurrection to test if this is true. My best guess he'd give the same answers about witchcraft, but he'd need to be the one to answer whether that example is any different in his view.
In regards to the part you modified word for word from me: "If a woman made a baby sick with witchcraft, and if that event caused the woman to be executed, then it would be correct to say that event (her use of witchcraft to make a baby sick) had a perceptible effect the course of history and future events." Yes, I'd agree that IF this was true THEN it had a perceptible effect. Note that this does not imply that witchcraft in fact has perceptible effects, just as my original argument did not imply that the Resurrection definitely did happen.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well then: Yes, science can indeed study the existence of the Christian god in the manner you describe, by trying to figure out whether the Resurrection occurred or not.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
You say that we should not take anything Thomas Huxley said seriously as he lived in 1895, yet you do not provide any examples of modern evolutionists stating he was wrong. Religion aside evolution does interest me, so if you know of any information that contradicts Thomas Huxley, I would appreciate it. I am one that believes in both God and evolution. I can try to explain why I think they can mesh if you wish.
One thing. As efficient as the brain is, not one of us uses it to its full capacity. What useful survival skills did music and mathematical ability give to our hunter ancestors? Some could argue they didn't evolve for those purposes and were adapted for other purposes. What would those purposes have been? Why did man not develope things such as enhanced smell, improved hearing or vision? What rival caused intellectual ability to be so essential for our species to survive?
Even Darwin's own partner Alfred Wallace debated that there was some "unknown spiritual element" that accounted for mans artistic and scientific abilities.
Again, discount what Wallace said, I know he was just some old guy that really didn't know what was going on. Let's just discount everything Richard Dawkins has said on the subject while we are at it. Afterall, the man is 68 years old. That is ancient.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: Well, only if you assume that the existence of the Resurrection is diagnostic of the existence of God.
Also, there seems to be some conflation of two different questions going on here.
(a) Can a scientific approach can be applied to historical study (i.e. "Did that specific supernova happen?")? (b) Can we use what we know about particular events to draw greater conclusions about the universe (i.e. "Do supernovas exist at all?")?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You say that we should not take anything Thomas Huxley said seriously as he lived in 1895, yet you do not provide any examples of modern evolutionists stating he was wrong.
Geraine, you continue to conflate what scientists say with what science says. Any given scientist can spout off about anything, but informal quotes, while potentially informative, are not authoritative.
Just for fun, I Googled your Huxley quote. It only shows up a handful of times, always on creationist sites. Big surprise. Since none of those sites provide an attribution for the quote, other than saying that Huxley said it, I can't even tell if it's a real quote.
In any case, science isn't about who has better quotes. If you want us to take that quote seriously then cite research that supports it. It's so vague as to be virtually impossible to support or refute. How are "large" and "major" defined in that context? And even with rigid definitions, how seriously do we take the musing of a person who was only familiar with a fraction of the current evolutionary evidence and who didn't even know about the structure of DNA. Huxley was even a skeptic of natural selection, a cornerstone of modern evolutionary science.
If you want to argue against modern science you've got to have at least a passing familiarity with it. Reading 100-years-dead scientists on creationist websites is not the best way to go about that.
You say that we should not take anything Thomas Huxley said seriously as he lived in 1895, yet you do not provide any examples of modern evolutionists stating he was wrong.
We should straighten a few things out early, to save everyone some grief:
1) Compared to the the body of professional biologists who work with evolutionary theories routinely, how much biology knowledge do you possess?
2) How much agreement do you think there is between what you think the valid conclusions of the facts of biology are, and what professional biologists think the valid conclusions are?
posted
Geraine: if you feel unable to come up with search terms that would let you check what modern understanding of the rates Huxley was talking about is, I suggest you do searches for things like "rate of speciation".
For instance, on the first page of that search you can find this article:
It estimates that there's an entire genus around 10 million years old, with numerous species inside of it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You say that we should not take anything Thomas Huxley said seriously as he lived in 1895, yet you do not provide any examples of modern evolutionists stating he was wrong.
No, I relied on you understanding that science does tend to advance over a period of a century, and to look it up yourself. Further, you are trying to argue by cherry-picked authority, which in itself demonstrates that you do not understand how serious discussion works; and to then pick an authority of a hundred years ago piles thoughtlessness on top of ignorance.
Nonetheless, an experiment demonstrating rapid evolution. I particularly draw your attention to these paragraphs:
quote:Darwin thought that evolution proceeded only at a glacial pace, and thus that its workings would be evident only after thousands of years. This view persisted for more than a century, and led to the widespread notion that evolution could be studied only through the lens of a historian. Recent years, however, have revealed that Darwin got this one wrong: Given strong enough selection, evolution can occur extremely rapidly, not only over the course of a scientist's career but even over the course of a few years (Reznick et al. 1997,Grant and Grant 2002).
Note particularly how Darwin's view is held to be thousands of years, not Huxley's millions; and how even this is contradicted by modern results.
quote:Even Darwin's own partner Alfred Wallace debated that there was some "unknown spiritual element" that accounted for mans artistic and scientific abilities.
Again with the quote mining of eighteenth-century scientists! Look, these people were at the cutting edge in their time, but science has advanced. We now know things that would have shocked the pants off Darwin and Wallace. You cannot hold a serious discussion of evolution based only on the opinions of these gentlemen; even their actual facts have to be checked with some care. And even if their knowledge was up to date, what's with the appeal to authority? "X held opinion Y" is meaningless; either give his argument for Y, or don't mention it at all.
I notice that you did not respond to the point I made about ape evolution. Once more, this is classic creationist tactics: You simply ignore any point where you have been effectively refuted. You claim to be interested in learning; to demonstrate your honesty on the point - and yes, that is necessary, because the well has been so poisoned by dishonest scum that the good faith of a creationist cannot be assumed; rather the opposite - kindly acknowledge that you were laboring under a misconception, now corrected, and that you will adjust your beliefs accordingly.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
You have just stated "how seriously do we take the musing of a person who was only familiar with a fraction of the current evolutionary evidence and who didn't even know about the structure of DNA."
So you admit that as science progresses, new things can be discovered. That is fine. In another 100 years, can you tell me what will be discovered? For all we know everything we know about certain scientific beliefs could be completely debunked by new research. As technology and scientific understanding increase, would it not be possible to prove things that are as of right now not possible to prove? The existence of a being greater than us perhaps?
Swbarnes, to answer your questions:
1) I have never professed to be a biologist nor be an expert on the subject.
2) I agree with their explanations to a certain extent. To say I agree with what is considered "fact" just because a most agree to it would be faulty. I believe they make the most educated decision based on their current understanding.
As far as the Resurrection is concerned, Huxley did try to explain that one, I wasn't able to find anyone else. By the way, my information didn't come off of a creationist website MattP. It came from his actual texts, most of which can be found very easily. Here is a link to his essay on the resurrection. Next time I suggest you not jump to conclusions.
He attempts to explain how Jesus' body could have been in a state of somatic death rather than molecular death. I found it pretty interesting.
KoM, do you profess that mankind knows everything there is to know in this universe, that we are the most intelligent life in this universe, and that no other life form exists that could possibly be more advanced than us?
Do I believe God exists? Yes, I do. Do I believe he is like the modern interpretation of what God is? Nope, not at all. God is what man may become one day. He has reached a point in His intellectuality that he knows all, sees all, and can create. I suppose you can call that evolution. So I will go ahead and do what you asked KoM. I hereby proclaim that I am a believer in evolution! Are you happy?
I am going to say here that I hope no one has been offended by anything I have typed. I enjoy debating, even though I will admit my arguments are not always the strongest. I really do appreciate your viewpoints and I do learn from them. There has been times in the past where I feel I have learned a great deal from posts some of you have typed, and I thank you for that.
So even though this Mormon conservative office worker may annoy the hell out of you sometimes, he appreciates you putting up with him and bringing him a little excitement when work gets dull.
posted
Could you link to (and quote) the piece from his actual texts talking about the rate of speciation?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you admit that as science progresses, new things can be discovered. That is fine. In another 100 years, can you tell me what will be discovered?
I can tell you that even 100 years ago scientists recognized that evolution had taken place and had just started to hypothesize on the mechanisms by which it had occurred. We now have 100 more years of research that has continued to support common descent as the explanation for the diversity of species and we even understand many of the mechanism by which it happens. The question of evolution is solved as much as the question of gravity causing bodies to be attracted to one another is solved. New research is not going to show that, oops, the Earth is actually repelled from the Sun. Similarly, new research is not going to show that, oops, we don't share a common ancestor with other apes.
Yes, science can be wrong, but just because it has occasionally been wrong in specifics, it's not appropriate to jump to the conclusion that its likely to be wrong in the fundamentals, particularly with the current level of sophistication. Additionally, on the occasions when science got it wrong, it was other scientists that found and corrected the problems when the data didn't stand up to scrutiny, not theologians who had philosophical problems with the conclusions of science.
quote:By the way, my information didn't come off of a creationist website MattP. It came from his actual texts, most of which can be found very easily. Here is a link to his essay on the resurrection. Next time I suggest you not jump to conclusions.
Great. Show me the website containing your earlier quote then. The only Google hits are creationist web sites and a single Google book hit which would only be reachable if you were already searching for the phrase (or another on the same page). That book, BTW, says Huxley said it, but doesn't name the publication in which the quote appears. I'd love to be able to read the context in which the quote appears and would be grateful if you could provide the link to the Huxley text in which it appears.
quote:So even though this Mormon conservative office worker may annoy the hell out of you sometimes
I wish such things didn't matter, but you do realize, I hope, that the LDS Church does not take an official position against evolution and the biologists in the Church's employ at BYU have no quarrel with evolutionary theory.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Swbarnes, to answer your questions:
1) I have never professed to be a biologist nor be an expert on the subject.
2) I agree with their explanations to a certain extent. To say I agree with what is considered "fact" just because a most agree to it would be faulty. I believe they make the most educated decision based on their current understanding.
You missed an important part of my question which is "How well do you think your understand the modern understanding of the theory of evolution?" Your question about ape evolution suggest that you don't know much at all, but it's important to know if you acknowledge this.
For instance, it's likely that some of the things you think modern scientists hold as facts" are in fact completely rejected by science.
And then there are the real conflicts, in which case you have to ask yourself, who is more likely to be right, someone who admits they are no expert, that they are not very familiar with the available data, or the large group of people who are experts, having spent most of their adult life learning the facts and how to analyze them?
If you insist that the answer should be the non-expert, because the non-expert is you...well, you can't expect that to be convincing, can you?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
