Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
malabarista
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 12:02pm PT
|
So, Jody.
You don't believe in carbon 14 dating, or in the findings of dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) either, right?
To believe everything was created within the last 6,000 years, you'd have to dispute these sciences as well. Why is it so important to dispute evolution in order to maintain your religious faith?
|
|
pinkpoint
Social climber
Nevada
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 12:10pm PT
|
don't ever believe that evolution is directional. just look in the mirror for proof.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 12:13pm PT
|
Jody,
You're an idiot.
love,
Dave
|
|
taco bill
Trad climber
boulder, co
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 12:29pm PT
|
How about Christianity...pretty damn unlikely?
The fact that nearly every religion has some version of the creation story speaks to the fact that humans are innately curious about the origin of life on earth. Throughout history, religious beliefs were passed down from generation to generation orally. Because of this, the stories were malleable. After twenty re-tellings, one might have a very different vision of their sect's beliefs than their forefathers. This malleability (dare I say evolution) allowed for changing societal mores to be reflected in the contemporary vision of the religion. Many of these stories were morality fables in the ilk of Aesop. There is certainly nothing wrong with a little moral guidance. In fact, I can embrace fundamental tenets of the Christian church such as forgiveness and unconditional love. However, I'm not quite ready to buy the whole enchilada.
Christian texts were passed down in a somewhat more permanent fashion in that they (they being an arbitrary subset of the entirety of the gnostic texts) were transcribed by hand. The fifteenth century and sixteenth centuries saw two far reaching changes in Christianity. The printing press and King James effectively ended the drifting of the tomes by creating a snapshot of the then current state of the religion in the language of the time. What we are left with is an often too literal translation of a metaphorical text. Because adherents of this flavor of Christianity went on to conquer the Western world, much of our society has blindly accepted these texts as "from the mouth of God." This unquestioning faith has led ultimately to debates such as the one in which we are currently engaged. Certainly no one (well hardly anyone) out there would argue that the the Greek gods reign over earth from Mount Olympus, but this was as pervasive view in its time and place as Christian beliefs are currently in the Western world.
Although I think they are pretty silly, I believe Mormons actually practice a truer version of Christianity than other Catholic or Protestant sects. For them, magical happenings were not confined to a window of time two to three thousand years ago. Miracles continue to happen and are prophets continue to walk the earth. For mainstream Christians, a self-proclaimed prophet is treated as a madman. Although the treatment is often warranted, who's to say Jesus wasn't the David Koresh of his time. By most accounts, the cult leaders we know of in the twenty-first century are successful at least partly because they are charismatic. Just because we have a lasting record of past zealotry doesn't mean we have to subscribe to it.
I believe that many faiths ultimately stem from the fear of death. Many people are uncomfortable with the possibility that their time on earth is the only existence they'll ever know. Religious texts address this in a variety of ways. For Christians, the dangling carrot of heavenly reward tries to ensure good behavior on earth (side effects include guilt, fear of the alternative and unsolicited proseletyzing [thinly veiled or not, Jody]). For others, reincarnation offers a return to earth in a station relative to one's demeanor in the past life.
I think coming to terms with one's mortality is one of the most difficult and most vital aspects of life. If you believe that something better waits beyond, more power to you. I personally don't. I think this life is my chance and I don't want to blow it. I live every day as if it could be my last. I try to treat people well in the hopes that I will receive the same level of respect, not because I fear eternal damnation.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 12:29pm PT
|
Jody
I don't see evolution as apart from the designs of the Universal Power, but I have to question why folks see it as a threat. It seems to me that
1. Folks are afraid that evolution will lead folks to conclude that religion and God are false.
and
2. If we evolved from Apes, that's an insult to our special status as humans
but in my opinion
1. It's folks who insist on a literal interpretation of creation in the Bible who are turning folks from religion, not the scientists who are coming closer to God all the time with quantum physics and such.
and
2. We're a lot smarter than apes but our record of how we treat each other isn't much better, probably worse. Christianity has a particularly nasty record with the crusades and inquisition and more. Christianity would be better spead with love, generousity and compassion than fighting against science.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 12:38pm PT
|
"Although I think they are pretty silly, I believe Mormons actually practice a truer version of Christianity than other Catholic or Protestant sects."
"Thou shalt not kill."
But murdering, massacreing, torturing, and slaughtering in the name of the faith are OK 'cause good ol' BY says so.
|
|
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 12:54pm PT
|
"My whole point is that science can't prove evolution, so therefore, it HAS to be intelligent design"
Jody, this statement makes no sense. You're saying that because one of the inifnite number of possible explanations can't be proven, that some other one of those inifinite number of possible explanations must be the case? huh?
Anyway, Karl and Ed summed things up from my end pretty well. The reality is that we don't know and never will, but from the evidence I've had presented to me, I'd go with evolution, and I trust in it enough to see it tought in school along with other theories like newtonian an einsteinian physics.
Personally, I think religious faith and explanations of the physical origins of the universe have no place explaining one another in absolute terms. One is metaphysical. The other, physical, and while one can affect our perception of the other, neither is a suitable substitute for the other.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 12:58pm PT
|
the attempt to argue w/ a creationist is in itself a fundamentally useless waste of one's time and energy. that belief set is one based simply upon one's faith, rather than logic or evidence, and any mountain of supporting evidence can and will be rejected as less than enough to "prove" evolution (or any other theory that conflicts w/ those beliefs) as fact.
the beauty of that stance is that the nature of science itself is that we do not attempt to prove something, rather we attempt to DISPROVE it instead. repeated efforts to observe and study the natural world are directed and organized in such a way as to seek evidence that will de-bunk a theory, and failed efforts result in the accumulation of "evidence", which is really just a stack of observations that seem to agree w/ a given theory.
therefore, someone who argues from a position of faith can always say "prove it", even w/ respect to gravity or the natural succession of inheritable traits between generations, etc. such relationships cannot actually be "known", only observed and eventually agreed upon by the observers...
as for the fossil record, the fallacy in that objection is that there are relatively few fossils relative to the overall number of individuals that have lived on the earth throughout its history, therefore one who argues from a position of faith can always point to the fossil "record" and say that it's "incomplete".
ironically, that's exactly the point- and in fact, it will always be incomplete.
better observations can be made in studying isolated populations, such as those on islands or that face other obstacles to interbreeding w/ neighboring populations. it is typically observed that divergent traits occur at greater rates and w/ greater divergence as populations are separated for greater lengths of time, and as they face greater differing selective pressures. so is that evidence? well no, but it might cause the critical thinkers among us to consider the possibilities- if we see that animals which interbreed do not diverge within the population while animals that do not interbreed do diverge, it certainly appears that selective pressures can impact a population over time.
science, therefore, considers two similar groups that do not interbreed to be seperate species, go figure. but then, the creationists object that speciation itself cannot occur (because species have to be created, you see...).
go check out the biota on madagascar and ask yourself why the intelligent designer put those animals over there, but not anywhere else, and then 'splain to me why there are (and were) so many genetically similar but physically differing species on the neighboring continent.
i know, i know, it's all BS if no one can show jody a physical example of some intermediate.
hey cop-shop, the lame one sided viewpoint stuff isn't even interesting to anyone but the choir to which that stuff gets preached, and no, it has no main-stream acceptance whatsoever.
go find me a jew or a muslim that believes in creationism and we can talk, that is a "science" based upon the need to reinforce existing preconceptions that stem from a specific religious text.
period.
springtime cannot be far away, but it's raining enough to cause a huge flood, say, maybe i'll go out and get my girlfriend another dog, just in case they have to go in 2's again...
jody-
i still wanna know how come god presented the white folks w/ his only son when agriculture and civilization itself began among the not-so-white and thousands of years before the time of christ... bummer that only those of you that accept that "fact" will get to go the big-ol-party up there in heaven, sure seems unfair to those whose momma tells 'em something else about who god is, don't it? but if you were real real rich n-stuff, and you had all sorts of folks around you who were less rich, and you wanted to make sure you could stay waaaaayyyy more rich than they all were, but you wanted their society to be somewhat structured and organized so that the po'-folk would keep on keepin on and keep on workin the crops on your lands and living in squalor so you could still be a filthy rich pre-midevil type, i'll betchya a real cool religion would make for a sweeeeeeet mechanism for social control...
not that the church was ever all that wealthy...
nor a major land holder...
nor a frequent abuser of the common man...
cause they love you, man...
hmmm, wonder if this christianity of yers mighta got any particular boost from that sort of thing, sure doesn't seem like those church types were all that nice to the po'-folks back in the day, i just wonder why jesus would have let all that stuff go on in his "house"...
maybe he lets it all go on to "challenge your faith" (taken from an earlier post, i liked that one! =)
you know what is really funny about all of this?
it's evolution that will clean up after us after this argument is a moot point, which will then bring us to mr. minerals and his whacky stone stuff, which in it's own way is just as fluid as all of these creatures of god...
i'm out, rage on, call me when the cracks are dry.
|
|
dufas
Trad climber
san francisco
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 01:00pm PT
|
jody says:
"How come the earth and all that inhabits it is decaying? The universe is decaying, that is an aspect of life. Not evolving into something better. "
Because humans aren't governed by a mating "season and don't use contraception and the Pope says that sex and condoms are wrong, so people just have sex.
Eventually, nature will correct itself and we'll be gone or changed in a way that we can't destroy ourselves. Now THAT's evolution.
|
|
Minerals
Social climber
The Deli
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 01:13pm PT
|
I think Jody should test his faith by jumping off of El Cap without a chute.
And to the rest of you: Please stop saying that stupid "gOD" word!! You're hurting my ears!!
Spirituality is like acid - it warps your mind.
Karma. Now that’s a different story…
|
|
Brian in SLC
Social climber
Salt Lake City, UT
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 01:17pm PT
|
Found some stuff that is kind of interesting to ponder.
FYI...
Brian in SLC
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . . . To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull facilities can comprehend only in the most primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the ranks of the devoutly religious men." Albert Einstein, What I Believe (1930)
Can We Know the Universe?
The following excerpt was published in Broca's Brain (1979).
by Carl Sagan
"Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only
surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep." — Ralph Waldo Emerson
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. Its goal is to find out how the world works, to seek what regularities there may be, to penetrate the connections of things—from subnuclear particles, which may be the constituents of all matter, to living organisms, the human social community, and thence to the cosmos as a whole. Our intuition is by no means an infallible guide. Our perceptions may be distorted by training and prejudice or merely because of the limitations of our sense organs, which, of course, perceive directly but a small fraction of the phenomena of the world. Even so straightforward a question as whether in the absence of friction a pound of lead falls faster than a gram of fluff was answered incorrectly by Aristotle and almost everyone else before the time of Galileo. Science is based on experiment, on a willingness to challenge old dogma, on an openness to see the universe as it really is. Accordingly, science sometimes requires courage—at the very least the courage to question the conventional wisdom.
Beyond this the main trick of science is to really think of something: the shape of clouds and their occasional sharp bottom edges at the same altitude everywhere in the sky; the formation of the dewdrop on a leaf; the origin of a name or a word—Shakespeare, say, or "philanthropic"; the reason for human social customs—the incest taboo, for example; how it is that a lens in sunlight can make paper burn; how a "walking stick" got to look so much like a twig; why the Moon seems to follow us as we walk; what prevents us from digging a hole down to the center of the Earth; what the definition is of "down" on a spherical Earth; how it is possible for the body to convert yesterday's lunch into today's muscle and sinew; or how far is up—does the universe go on forever, or if it does not, is there any meaning to the question of what lies on the other side? Some of these questions are pretty easy. Others, especially the last, are mysteries to which no one even today knows the answer. They are natural questions to ask. Every culture has posed such questions in one way or another. Almost always the proposed answers are in the nature of "Just So Stories," attempted explanations divorced from experiment, or even from careful comparative observations.
But the scientific cast of mind examines the world critically as if many alternative worlds might exist, as if other things might be here which are not. Then we are forced to ask why what we see is present and not something else. Why are the Sun and the Moon and the planets spheres? Why not pyramids, or cubes, or dodecahedra? Why not irregular, jumbly shapes? Why so symmetrical worlds? If you spend any time spinning hypotheses, checking to see whether they make sense, whether they conform to what else we know, thinking of tests you can pose to substantiate or deflate your hypotheses, you will find yourself doing science. And as you come to practice this habit of thought more and more you will get better and better at it. To penetrate into the heart of the thing—even a little thing, a blade of grass, as Walt Whitman said—is to experience a kind of exhilaration that, it may be, only human beings of all the beings on this planet can feel. We are an intelligent species and the use of our intelligence quite properly gives us pleasure. In this respect the brain is like a muscle. When we think well, we feel good. Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.
But to what extent can we really know the universe around us? Sometimes this question is posed by people who hope the answer will be in the negative, who are fearful of a universe in which everything might one day be known. And sometimes we hear pronouncements from scientists who confidently state that everything worth knowing will soon be known—or even is already known—and who paint pictures of a Dionysian or Polynesian age in which the zest for intellectual discovery has withered, to be replaced by a kind of subdued languor, the lotus eaters drinking fermented coconut milk or some other mild hallucinogen. In addition to maligning both the Polynesians, who were intrepid explorers (and whose brief respite in paradise is now sadly ending), as well as the inducements to intellectual discovery provided by some hallucinogens, this contention turns out to be trivially mistaken.
Let us approach a much more modest question: not whether we can know the universe or the Milky Way Galaxy or a star or a world. Can we know, ultimately and in detail, a grain of salt? Consider one microgram of table salt, a speck just barely large enough for someone with keen eyesight to make out without a microscope. In that grain of salt there are about 10 to the 16 sodium and chlorine atoms. That is a 1 followed by 16 zeros, 10 million billion atoms. If we wish to know a grain of salt we must know at least the three-dimensional positions of each of these atoms. (In fact, there is much more to be known—for example, the nature of the forces between the atoms—but we are making only a modest calculation.) Now, is this number more or less than a number of things which the brain can know?
How much can the brain know? There are perhaps 10 to the 11 neurons in the brain, the circuit elements and switches that are responsible in their electrical and chemical activity for the functioning of our minds. A typical brain neuron has perhaps a thousand little wires, called dendrites, which connect it with its fellows. If, as seems likely, every bit of information in the brain corresponds to one of these connections, the total number of things knowable by the brain is no more than 10 to the 14, one hundred trillion. But this number is only one percent of the number of atoms in our speck of salt.
So in this sense the universe is intractable, astonishingly immune to any human attempt at full knowledge. We cannot on this level understand a grain of salt, much less the universe.
But let us look a little more deeply at our microgram of salt. Salt happens to be a crystal in which, except for defects in the structure of the crystal lattice, the position of every sodium and chlorine atom is predetermined. If we could shrink ourselves into this crystalline world, we would rank upon rank of atoms in an ordered array, a regularly alternating structure—sodium, chlorine, sodium, chlorine, specifying the sheet of atoms we are standing on and all the sheets above us and below us. An absolutely pure crystal of salt could have the position of every atom specified by something like 10 bits of information. This would not strain the information-carrying capacity of the brain.
If the universe had natural laws that governed its behavior to the same degree of regularity that determines a crystal of salt, then, of course, the universe would be knowable. Even if there were many such laws, each of considerable complexity, human beings might have the capability to understand them all. Even if such knowledge exceeded the information-carrying capacity of the brain, we might store the additional information outside our bodies—in books, for example, or in computer memories—and still, in some sense, know the universe.
Human beings are, understandably, highly motivated to find regularities, natural laws. The search for rules, the only possible way to understand such a vast and complex universe, is called science. The universe forces those who live in it to understand it. Those creatures who find everyday experience a muddled jumble of events with no predictability, no regularity, are in grave peril. The universe belongs to those who, at least to some degree, have figured it out.
It is an astonishing fact there are laws of nature, rules that summarize conveniently—not just qualitatively but quantitatively—how the world works. We might imagine a universe in which there are no such laws, in which the 1080 elementary particles that make up a universe like our own behave with utter and uncompromising abandon. To understand such a universe we would need a brain at least as massive as the universe. It seems unlikely that such a universe could have life and intelligence, because beings and brains require some degree of internal stability and order. But even if in a much more random universe there were such beings with an intelligence much greater than our own, there could not be much knowledge, passion or joy.
Fortunately for us, we live in a universe that has at least important parts that are knowable. Our common-sense experience and our evolutionary history have prepared us to understand something of the workaday world. When we go into other realms, however, common sense and ordinary intuition turn out to be highly unreliable guides. It is stunning that as we go close to the speed of light our mass increases indefinitely, we shrink towards zero thickness in the direction of motion, and time for us comes as near to stopping as we would like. Many people think that this is silly, and every week or two I get a letter from someone who complains to me about it. But it is a virtually certain consequence not just of experiment but also of Albert Einstein's brilliant analysis of space and time called the Special Theory of Relativity. It does not matter that these effects seem unreasonable to us. We are not in the habit of traveling close to the speed of light. The testimony of our common sense is suspect at high velocities.
Or consider an isolated molecule composed of two atoms shaped something like a dumbbell—a molecule of salt, it might be. Such a molecule rotates about an axis through the line connecting the two atoms. But in the world of quantum mechanics, the realm of the very small, not all orientations of our dumbbell molecule are possible. It might be that the molecule could be oriented in a horizontal position, say, or in a vertical position, but not at many angles in between. Some rotational positions are forbidden. Forbidden by what? By the laws of nature.
The universe is built in such a way as to limit, or quantise, rotation. We do not experience this directly in everyday life; we would find it startling as well as awkward in sitting-up exercises, to find arms out stretched from the sides or pointed up to the skies permitted but many intermediate positions forbidden. We do not live in the world of the small, on the scale of 10-13 centimeters, in the realm where there are twelve zeros between the decimal place and the one. Our common-sense intuitions do not count. What does count is experiment—in this case observations from the far infrared spectra of molecules. They show molecular rotation to be quantized.
The idea that the world places restrictions on what humans might do is frustrating. Why shouldn't we be able to have intermediate rotational positions? Why can't we travel faster than the speed of light? But so far as we can tell, this is the way the universe is constructed. Such prohibitions not only press us toward a little humility; they also make the world more knowable. Every restriction corresponds to a law of nature, a regulation of the universe. The more restrictions there are on what matter and energy can do, the more knowledge human beings can attain. Whether in some sense the universe is ultimately knowable depends not only on how many natural laws there are that encompass widely divergent phenomena, but also on whether we have the openness and the intellectual capacity to understand such laws. Our formulations of the regularities of nature are surely dependent on how the brain is built, but also, and to a significant degree, on how the universe is built.
For myself, I like a universe that includes much that is unknown and, at the same time, much that is knowable. A universe in which everything is known would be static and dull, as boring as the heaven of some weak-minded theologians. A universe that is unknowable is no fit place for a thinking being. The ideal universe for us is one very much like the universe we inhabit. And I would guess that this is not really much of a coincidence.
|
|
dirtbag
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 01:35pm PT
|
Actually, I was just advocating teaching kids that gravity is an unproven theory.
|
|
Josh Higgins
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 02:16pm PT
|
Jody said, "I still don't see this overwhelming evidence that evolution exists."
That is because you are not willing to look. You don't go into a dialogue like this with the idea of WHAT CAN I LEARN? You go into a dialogue with the mentality of I AM GOING PROVE OTHER PEOPLE WRONG. You're not open minded enough to listen to other auguments, and therefore there are problems with your logic (as previously noted). There is no proof for creationism, who why are you so set on that? Can you disprove evolution? No. That requires work, you'd rather just disprove other people's thoughts with faulty logic.
About missing links: As far as I understand, it is very difficult to find fossils. I'm not an archeologist, but I know they are excited when they find something that is 40,000 years old. This is understandable. There are geological changes that move earth, micro and macro organisms that destroy carcasses, and chemical decay destroys as well. There are many processes that are keeping acheologists from holding your hand and pointing to a set trail of 100s of fossils that are slightly different that lead from apes to humans. Even if they did have those 100s of fossils, I'm sure that you would say something along the lines of "You can't prove that they came from each other, therefore evolution is false and a human construction."
|
|
anachronism
Trad climber
Yosemite, CA
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 02:21pm PT
|
*CREEEEEEEEEEK*
That, friends, is the sound of the door as Jody exits the room. He wanted to go point for point but he's now got 20 excellent points to address. He doesn't stand a chance. Exit stage left.... again...
And I have to admit, this is cracking me up. My first response to this post was don't go there. I predicted why. I'm laughing. This rules.
|
|
Bob Jones
Trad climber
san luis obispo
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 02:36pm PT
|
wisdom teeth.
|
|
anachronism
Trad climber
Yosemite, CA
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 02:46pm PT
|
Good point, Bob. And you got that one in early and Jody has yet to address that point (for point).
appendix!
|
|
dufas
Trad climber
san francisco
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 03:24pm PT
|
little toes
|
|
dufas
Trad climber
san francisco
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 03:25pm PT
|
ears that wiggle
|
|
dufas
Trad climber
san francisco
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 03:25pm PT
|
dew claws
|
|
dufas
Trad climber
san francisco
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 03:26pm PT
|
aaaaccckkk, I take that one back, jody will say that's because of human intervention
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!