# Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?



## KO2134

Just Curious?


----------



## dmurawsky

At first, I was planning on saying yes. However, there's a lot more to evolution than Darwin ever considered. Calling it "Darwinian Evolution" is a very specific portion of evolutionary theory. So, no, I don't believe in "Darwinian Evolution". It's very dated at this point. However, evolution in general? Absolutely. There is clear evidence in the genetic record for it, and we are still evolving to this day.


----------



## coachn

How does Darwinian Evolution differ from Actual Evolution?


----------



## JJones

I voted unsure because the modern theory of evolution has...well, evolved since Darwin came up with his original theory.  I also voted this because the theory will continue to change as more information comes to light.

It's probably because I'm about to be a biology teacher (Lord willing) but to me, denying evolution is like denying gravity.  We may not know how it works but we know it's there.


----------



## RedTemplar

I don't know how everything has come to be. But The Great Architect is behind it all.


----------



## Blake Bowden

RedTemplar said:


> I don't know how everything has come to be. But The Great Architect is behind it all.



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## BryanMaloney

coachn said:


> How does Darwinian Evolution differ from Actual Evolution?



First, evolution is Not A God, so It Does Not Have To Be Capitalized. Darwin's original model, that of evolution by natural selection, can be seen as a special case of modern evolution models, just as Newtonian physics can be seen as a special case of modern physics. In Darwin's model, "fitness" was the only criterion for evolution, and Darwin also had some progressivism in his model (the idea that what exists now is and must be "better" than what came before). Darwin also had no biochemical mechanisms. The modern synthesis states that evolution of species is simply change in frequencies of alleles over time, due to whatever cause. If enough changes amass in a population, it may become sufficiently different to be considered a new species. Issues like natural selection or "fitness" are entirely secondary. Modern evolution models posit no inherent direction and no criterion that considers anything to be "better" than any other--just more common. After all, if a comet smacks your continent, you are no less "fit" for having been killed by it, just unlucky.


----------



## BEDickey

I do believe in evolution in regards to animals and the animal kingdom, but believe Humans to be an exception to it. IMHO forces in the ancient past acted upon humans and created them as we we know know them as opposed to evolving to where we are.


----------



## BEDickey

BryanMaloney said:


> First, evolution is Not A God, so It Does Not Have To Capitalized.



In my studies I have found that in "scientism", the figure of "god" was replaced by evolution, some people look upon it as a type of "god" with Darwin as its "prophet". I would urge people to look up "disciples of the mysterium" for more about what I am talking about.


----------



## Michael Hatley

Sure I do - insomuch as the general principle and not to be held to granular details or other men's interpretations.  

Same as my answer to the Supreme Being question.


----------



## coachn

Originally Posted by *coachn* 

				 How does Darwinian Evolution differ from Actual Evolution?     



BryanMaloney said:


> First, evolution is Not A God, so It Does Not Have To Be Capitalized.


     Yes, Evolution is not a god or God, but Evolution IS God's Way of Raising His Middle Finger to almost every Environmental Change.


----------



## dfreybur

Michael Hatley said:


> Sure I do - insomuch as the general principle and not to be held to granular details or other men's interpretations.



Right.

When it comes to what he meant - Read his actual book.  It's amazing in how much it covers and how far he saw into future progress.  Even though he had no idea of the mechanism that has since been worked out.  For a lot of statements about Darwin it's very clear many people have not read his book.  Assertions about what he missed that I found in the book when I read it.  Assertions about what he stated that didn't appear in the book when I read it.

When it comes to the evidence - Disagreeing with evolution is like disagreeing with inorganic chemistry.  We now have genetic engineering that works and that will work better over time.  The mechanism that has been worked out will be revised and tinkered with but it is rock solid.  In the face of that belief or disbelief has to mean something else.

With the usual option that the universe could have been created at  any point looking like it's much older.  I've never known how to address  such an approach other than that religion and science address different  topics so they shouldn't be in conflict so such conflicts must have  explanations.  It's how I view the creationist stance.

The biggest weakness in the arena is the definitions of "species" that have always been poor.  In his book he addresses the topic better than I've seen.

[/QUOTE]Same as my answer to the Supreme Being question.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.  There are puzzles that remain unresolved and some of them always will be unresolved.

Is the universe itself set up to generate life that evolves to self awareness and eventually to awareness of the divine?  Answering that is beyond the kenn of modern science.  This is how I view the question of creation, or one of the ways I view the question as there's also the question of what time means when it appears to have a beginning that had something going on before time began (whatever something that nonsensical could mean).

How did life emerge from non-life?  Science does continue working on that.  It might or might not be answered eventually but it is secondary to the previous question.

Was our genetics tinkered with somehow to influence our form?  That's what I would like to think folks mean by "intelligent design".  Unless that means the universe is set up to evolve life etc.  A universe set up to evolve life etc would not automatically lead to us if by us you mean humanity.  A universe where genetics get occasional miraculous tinkering tends to point in the direction of us.  Then again I take "us" as aware beings who perceive the divine not as humanity in particular.  If some day we encounter aliens who look like spiders but who think about the divine to me they too are in his image because to me his image is about thought not about details of form.


----------



## BryanMaloney

One thing about reading _Origin of Species_: It is an example of some excellent 19th-century science. It is not an accurate portrayal of current evolutionary theory, no more than a medical textbook from the middle 1800s should be taken as normative for modern medicine. I would recommend _What Evolution Is_ by Ernst Mayr. It was published in 2001.


----------



## Michael Hatley

I've skimmed some of Darwin's original, but by the time I got to him, Freud and the later thinkers I was already fairly happy with a rather "impressionist" view of metaphysics in general.  I blame it on the granularity of the early philosophers, then hitting Spinoza, and then wandering to the Transcendentalists before hitting them.  By that point I figured pretty well noone has it all figured out and I stopped caring much about the details and more being interested in general concepts for their own sake.

Like the concept of pandeism, for example - an offshoot of deism.   Classic deism (of which many of the founders of this country as well as our order in this country were, and it was a thought process prevalent during the Enlightenment in general) as we understand it (or at least, as I do) posits that God created the Universe and then took a step back.  Presumably either to observe his Creation or to deal with other matters or whatever.

Pandeism takes a bit of a spin on some Eastern thought, some of which posits that God destroyed himself/herself/itself in order to create the universe - slaps it together with deism, and posits that God *became* the universe.

Which is an interesting thought, to me, because of the Big Bang and whatnot.  It is entirely feasible to me that if all matter in the known universe were scrunched into one mass, why, sure and it could be sentient.  And a lot more sentient than us.  It is an interesting idea anyway.

Now that doesn't satisfy questions of other dimensions, membrane like realities, time and on and on.  But the general idea is interesting, especially when you overlay ideas like evolution, Freemasonry and so forth into the mix.  A great plan, set in motion from starting point A.  Maybe it is even cyclical, as many in the East believe.

Such a system allows for free will too, at least from certain angles taken at it - as opposed to a fellow bent over the chessboard and nudging pieces, if you will.  Rather a grand formula, set in motion - with Chaos/free will/chance nudging the pieces.

So for me, evolution fits into the system the same way that E=mc2 does.  I understand the general idea of relativity in layman's terms.  Same with black holes, quantum mechanics and so on.  Tools of the Great Architect to build the vast creation we see before us.

Or maybe, these things are in themselves - in aggregate, the Supreme Being.

Woops, rambling :001_smile:


----------



## jwhoff

Science most state it premise.  That premise is then tested and EVOLVES into further science.  The genome now appears before us.  Surely, it will not be the final truth.  After all, the Mercury capsule was a marvelous thing when I was in elementary school.  Still, I doubt it will get us to Mars.


----------



## jvarnell

jwhoff said:


> Science most state it premise. That premise is then tested and EVOLVES into further science. The genome now appears before us. Surely, it will not be the final truth. After all, the Mercury capsule was a marvelous thing when I was in elementary school. Still, I doubt it will get us to Mars.



I believe everything is a hypothesis and we believe the hypothesis we are closest to is right in our mind.  We will never know the truth we will just think we do.  But with all that said I believe Darwin had one main thing wrong and that it was not by chance we evolved and we were gided by our creator.  Or nudged in the right direction.


----------



## dfreybur

jwhoff said:


> The genome now appears before us.  Surely, it will not be the final truth.



Physics changed when the two relativities hit.  Both are edge cases.  Did SR and GM invalidate Newtonian-Galilean physics?  It did in the edge cases so it's a matter of where to draw the borders.

Inorganic chemistry changed when QM hit chemistry.  But all of the  formulae from before QM still work without change.  Inorganic chemistry pre-QM is not  incorrect.  Knowledge of it has been made deeper without actually  invalidating it.

We now have genetic engineering.  The field will change vastly over time.  Whether this is the model of pre-SR physics or pre-QM chemistry is a matter of borders.

In science all observations have error bars.  All theories have error bars.  The error bars for genetic engineering are tiny.  The molecular model for living organisms is incomplete but the part that we do know is no more subject to belief or disbelief than the inorganic chemistry of a lead-acid battery.

None of which says there's been no tinkering of our genetics by subtle influences of the divine.  None of which says the divine didn't set up the universe to evolve life that thinks about the divine.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Much of the history of science consists of "definition of a special case". In science, a "special case" is a situation in which a simplified model works "well enough for our purposes". The special case fits inside the "more general case". Thus, Aristotelean physics is a special case of Newtonian physics, which is, itself, a special case of both relativity (at large scale) and quantum (at small scale) physics. Likewise, there are also situations in which a scientific concept becomes redesigned in order to better fit new data. For example, the old practice of phrenology in its expression of bumps on the skull reflecting personality has been thoroughly invalidated. However, the underlying premise has been validated: Specific areas of the brain have specific functions, including on personality. They just aren't reflected through bumps in the skull. This is, by the way, the actual "theory of phrenology", that specific areas of the brain have specific effects on human ability and behavior. It was a mechanism of phrenology that was discredited. Unfortunately, the crackpots of the present day only remember the mechanism and forget the underlying theory.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Michael Hatley said:


> I've skimmed some of Darwin's original, but by the time I got to him, Freud and the later thinkers



Darwin, Freud, et al, are only of historical interest. They have all been superceded by working science. From my perspective, they are not "later thinkers", they are "early workers".


----------



## dfreybur

BryanMaloney said:


> Darwin, Freud, et al, are only of historical interest. They have all been superceded by working science.



Matter of how you learned the terminology.  The way I learned science Galilean physics was refined by Newton, Newtonian physics was refined by Einstein and Bohr.  What I consider an example of being superseded is the philostigon theory of combustion being replaced by the oxygen theory of combustion.  Thus to me Darwin and Mendel were refined by Watson and Crick who have since been refined by all sorts of genetic engineering and the so-called "modern genetic dogma".  I do *not* like how the word dogma is used in that scientific expression but the fact that it's now called engineering says that going forward all scientists expect it to be refined as Einstein did to Newton but never overturned as happened with philostigon.

Another example of overturning what I call superseding was from epicycles to Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein for orbits.  The epicycle theory was shown incorrect the others were shown approximations that needed refinement but that were not at their core incorrect.  It is my suspicion that dark matter and/or dark energy are nearing the epicycle point - The observational evidence for dark matter and the discovery of additional regular matter both grow in a currently unmatched pair.  It looks like we're nearing a point when the evidence says what we called dark matter is this and the theory can move forward like when genetics was linked to evolution, or no what we called dark matter is that others stuff and the theory has to be replaced like when oxygen combustion replaced philostigon.

Thus to me modern cross breed farming, genetic engineering and efforts to categorize life by tree of descent are all "Darwinian evolution" in the same sense that calculating orbits for Jupiter probes (they do use special relativity for Jupiter probes) is "Galilean physics".  I just put a goat leg roast on the smoker and I made a sauce/paste that includes specially bred yellow tomatoes and specially bred dried powdered Hatch chiles (plus several other ingredients).  Modern cross breed farming doesn't care in the least if I believe in its Darwinian methods or not.


----------



## BryanMaloney

I would not read Darwin to get an accurate idea of modern evolution theory, just like I would not read Galen to get an idea of modern medicine.


----------



## widows son

I'd say reading Darwin would be good way to get a good foundation of the subject. As other brothers have said though, it should be the only material read on the subject.


----------



## widows son

Sorry, it shouldn't be the only material read.


----------



## BryanMaloney

I would not start with Darwin. Far too dated.
Start with Mayr.
I am a biologist, after all, I ought to know what doesn't reflect current consensus.


----------



## jvarnell

As I have been thinking about this question I have come to the conclusion that Darwinian evolution is a theory and has some facts and questions.  (Not proven)  As a theory it is like dogma of religion not all proven and there has to be some faith on the parts those part that are not. 

The word "theory" is just that and the first step of coming to a conclusion that still my not be right but just a conclusion to ones research so others can start pier review and modify the theory.  Because someone wants the theory to be fact doesn't make it complete.


----------



## coachn

Here's a neat article on the 23 human vs 24 chimp chromosome mystery.  It confirms for me that evolution is not so much evolving (no pun intended) as much our understanding and explanations of it is, almost daily!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/l...-guest-appearance-from-facebook-creationists/


----------



## jwhoff

I have to agree with Brother Bryan and Brother Nagy on this subject. 

I suspect we've learned more about biology since Darwin's era.  Not sure we've learned much about Enlightenment.  But I hear, on occasion, there have been quantum leaps in knowledge throughout the history of man.  

Logically, there is always hope.


----------



## widows son

"I would not start with Darwin. Far too dated.
Start with Mayr."

• Ill check it out thanks. In college I took a sci-if course that looked at fiction that was influenced by the theories Darwin put forth so we started by reading Origin of Species.


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> As I have been thinking about this question I have come to the conclusion that Darwinian evolution is a theory and has some facts and questions.  (Not proven)  As a theory it is like dogma of religion not all proven and there has to be some faith on the parts those part that are not.
> 
> The word "theory" is just that and the first step of coming to a conclusion that still my not be right but just a conclusion to ones research so others can start pier review and modify the theory.  Because someone wants the theory to be fact doesn't make it complete.



What you call a "theory" is called a "hypothesis" by scientists. Science does not use "theory" the way you use it. The first step is called a "hypothesis"--or do you also believe that the "theory of Gravity" is just a first step and can be, therefore, simply disbelieved? How about the germ theory of disease? You can just deny that bacteria cause disease? The use of the word "theory" says nothing about a model being merely preliminary. What scientific work have you done to get this complete misconception about the terminology of the fields?


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> What you call a "theory" is called a "hypothesis" by scientists. Science does not use "theory" the way you use it. The first step is called a "hypothesis"--or do you also believe that the "theory of Gravity" is just a first step and can be, therefore, simply disbelieved? How about the germ theory of disease? You can just deny that bacteria cause disease? The use of the word "theory" says nothing about a model being merely preliminary. What scientific work have you done to get this complete misconception about the terminology of the fields?



I think that Darwinian evolution is a theory.

"
A _theory_ is a causal chain, or statements of a causal chain, which have been proven logically/mathematically to be true.  In other words, a statement is made about a causal relationship ("X because Y" or "X therefore Y") and that statement is _tested_.  Evidence is gathered and presented regarding the statement, and evaluated; this might include the results of observation or experiment, but in all cases evidence must be grounded in the objective, external world. 
A _hypothesis_ is an unproven theory - e.g. it is a statement of a causal chain or relationship, perhaps (one hopes) including an explanation of why it is likely to be true.  It has not, however, been subject to definitive or rigorous testing!  If I stated "The sky is blue because blue dye evaporates the fastest and humans have made lots of dye in their history so that the sky is permeated with predominantly blue dye," that's a hypothesis. 
"


----------



## BryanMaloney

If someone claims that a theory is merely a "first step", one is claiming that it is actually just a hypothesis, since the hypothesis is the first step, not the theory.

Finally, there is no such thing as a "fact" in science, merely a theory that has not yet been falsified. If you want "facts" do not look to science. Science has models. All models are wrong, but some appear to be useful for the current moment, within certain parameters. In our real world, there are no verifiable "facts", merely models with more or less levels of support. If a model ceases to be useful, a scientist will abandon it.


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> A _hypothesis_ is an unproven theory - e.g. it is a statement of a causal chain or relationship, perhaps (one hopes) including an explanation of why it is likely to be true.  It has not, however, been subject to definitive or rigorous testing!  If I stated "The sky is blue because blue dye evaporates the fastest and humans have made lots of dye in their history so that the sky is permeated with predominantly blue dye," that's a hypothesis.
> "



A hypothesis should never be distinguished by being a silly idea. Hypothesis: Amyloid beta causes Alzheimer's disease. Alternative hypothesis: Amyloid beta is a result of Alzheimer's disease. Both are hypotheses. The first one, for a time, had the weight of greater evidence. Now, the weight is less unevenly distributed between the two hypotheses. Neither one is silly. Right now, current models still favor the first hypothesis, but there may be room to admit the second, or even both hypotheses within an overall theory explaining Alzheimer's disease. A hypothesis is not an "unproven theory". A hypothesis is never "proved", it is merely "insufficiently disfavored by the weight of current evidence". And no matter how much a hypothesis is insufficiently disfavored, it never becomes a theory in and of itself. Theory is the overall framework into which hypotheses might or might not fit.


----------



## coachn

I like what WIKI says on this.  The red colored words stand out most for me:  

A *hypothesis* (plural _hypotheses_) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a *scientific hypothesis*, the scientific method requires that one can test it. 

Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a _scientific hypothesis_ is not the same as a _scientific theory_. 

A _scientific hypothesis_ is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. 

In contrast, _a scientific theory_ has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.[SUP][1][/SUP] 

A *working hypothesis* is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[SUP][2][/SUP]

A different meaning of the term _hypothesis_ is used in formal logic, to denote the antecedent of a proposition; thus in the proposition "If _P_, then _Q_", _P_ denotes the hypothesis (or antecedent); _Q_ can be called a consequent. _P_ is the assumption in a (possibly counterfactual) _What If_ question.
The adjective _hypothetical_, meaning "having the nature of a hypothesis", or "being assumed to exist as an immediate consequence of a hypothesis", can refer to any of these meanings of the term "hypothesis".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

Sort of like:  This might explain it... Hypothesis --> Let's put it through Extensive and Rigorous Testing --> WOW!  Looks like this explains it!  It can be called a "Theory!"

Now, contrast this with Law, such as the Law of Gravity, and we open up a whole new bag o' evolving worms!


----------



## dfreybur

Hypothesis versus theory.  A hypothesis is a theory waiting for experimental or statistical evidence.  According to the scientific method you come up with a hypothesis (idea) then figure out how to test the idea.  Some ideas work well with the data.  Many ideas don't and are falsified.  All theories are hypothesis in the sense of that's how they start out.

Fact versus theory.  General semantics - All knowledge is provisional.  Science - All data comes with error bars.  There gets to a point where the error bars are so small it hardly makes sense to call an idea not a fact.  Sure, it's never going to stop being provisional and it's always subject to being overturned but the quality of match to reality and the length of time it's been that way matters.  Does anyone ever think that the inorganic chemistry that makes the lead-acid battery start a car for the morning commute is going to stop working?  We replace the battery or fix the wiring because we know the chemistry is never going to stop working.  Theories range from almost mythical speculation like Big Bang through indistinguishable from fact like inorganic chemistry.

What a civilian means by "fact" and what a scientist means by "fact" are different but there reaches a point when the difference is too small to effect anything we'll ever encounter.

When Darwin wrote "The origin of Species ..." he was not aware of experimental evidence supporting his ideas.   What he saw was statistical not experimental.  Now we know otherwise.  Domestication is experimental evolution.  Darwin wrote a book on the topic "The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication".  I just found a public domain copy on Project Gutenberg and downloaded it in MOBI format for my Kindle.


----------



## coachn

So, it's not a verifiable fact that, if you squash a man's skull into a pancake, light what remains of it on fire and then scatter the resulting ashes to the four winds, he shall cease to be the same man he was and that there exists some small amount of error in this fact?  

Just one question, at what point does fact not have error ?


----------



## Aeelorty

> So, it's not a verifiable fact that, if you squash a man's skull into a pancake, light what remains of it on fire and then scatter the resulting ashes to the four winds, he shall cease to be the same man he was and that there exists some small amount of error in this fact?
> 
> Just one question, at what point does fact not have error ?



Science does not deal with facts as nothing is ever proved only falsified, scientist talk in degrees of support. It is a great trick to see how much a person really knows by listening for the use of words like usually, we believe, right now we think, etc. The more concrete a person claims to be an expert gets the less you should listen. 

So what a scientist would say is that there is a small chance he might not cease to be the same man. Another bizarre thing to think of is that in Quantum mechanics it is possible to walk through a solid wall, minuscule changes but still possible. Thinking purely scientifically is not an easy way to live or operate. 



> When Darwin wrote "The origin of Species ..." he was not aware of experimental evidence supporting his ideas. What he saw was statistical not experimental. Now we know otherwise. Domestication is experimental evolution. Darwin wrote a book on the topic "The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication". I just found a public domain copy on Project Gutenberg and downloaded it in MOBI format for my Kindle.



Not all supporting evidence needs to be experimental, the qualification is that the question must be falsifiable in theory.


----------



## ej6267

jvarnell said:


> As I have been thinking about this question I have come to the conclusion that Darwinian evolution is a theory and has some facts and questions.  (Not proven)  As a theory it is like dogma of religion not all proven and there has to be some faith on the parts those part that are not.
> 
> The word "theory" is just that and the first step of coming to a conclusion that still my not be right but just a conclusion to ones research so others can start pier review and modify the theory.  Because someone wants the theory to be fact doesn't make it complete.






Freemason Connect HD


----------



## coachn

At what point does taking a man's brain out of his skull, running it through a blender (on the highest setting) and pouring it back into his skull become more than just provisional brain death?  I don't even know where you would begin to hook up the electrodes to attempt measuring this.  

Is there no point where science can factually say, "yup, the guy's brain is worm fodder."


----------



## Aeelorty

> Is there no point where science can factually say, "yup, the guy's brain is worm fodder."



Nope there really isn't we can only say that he only very very very very very likely isn't the same. It is one of the draw backs to science and is also why rigorous scientific thinking is difficult, it is a very unnatural way of thinking. All evidence points to saying no that person is no longer the same so we can say it like that fact but it is important to distinguish that it is not. No one is going to seriously claim that the person is the same but due to the constraints of being "science" we cant say it is fact. Now scientist get lazy and treat things as facts but those facts may change and that is the catch. When we say something is a fact we mean that it is always true, however we have discovered many times that new information might change the picture so we have to be careful in declaring "facts" because "facts" do in fact change from time to time. Nothing is more exciting to a scientist, or more disconcerting, than findings that disprove "facts."


----------



## coachn

So, your saying that the denial of every day accepted reality is a skill highly prized, revered and cultivated by Scientist worldwide?   It reminds me of something out of Monty Python or Lister from Red Dwarf!  [video=youtube;shs7VQhVvxA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shs7VQhVvxA[/video]


----------



## Aeelorty

Haha pretty much. Scientist talk in degrees of probability. Don't believe me? Think about orbitals around an atom. There is not finite set of space where the atom must be, there are are just differing levels of likelihood where an electron will be. It could well be over a mile away but there is a very very low probability for that condition.

We live in a world of possibilities brethren = )


----------



## Mathew1333

No such thing as evolution. However, adaptation is an undeniable fact. I believe adaptation and scale relationship is key to understanding "evolution" Darwin WAS correct.

Freemason Connect HD


----------



## coachn

Mathew1333 said:


> No such thing as evolution. However, adaptation is an undeniable fact. I believe adaptation and scale relationship is key to understanding "evolution" Darwin WAS correct.
> 
> Freemason Connect HD


No such thing as evolution?  Yet, you state that "adaption and scale relationship is key to understanding" no such thing? Most Interesting!


----------



## BryanMaloney

coachn said:


> At what point does taking a man's brain out of his skull, running it through a blender (on the highest setting) and pouring it back into his skull become more than just provisional brain death?  I don't even know where you would begin to hook up the electrodes to attempt measuring this.
> 
> Is there no point where science can factually say, "yup, the guy's brain is worm fodder."





How many decimal points over do you want to round off? What is the criterion for rounding?

If you want absolute certainty, go find a cult leader. He will feed you all the certainty you want.

In some labs, it matters whether or not we deal with Penicillium veridians or Penicillium restrictans. Outside the lab, it's generally good enough to have "mold on the corn". It all depends on where you round the decimals, so to speak, and there is no universally valid standard for rounding the decimals.

Welcome to a world without training wheels.


----------



## BryanMaloney

coachn said:


> Now, contrast this with Law, such as the Law of Gravity, and we open up a whole new bag o' evolving worms!



In practice, among scientist, "laws" are actually rules of thumb or procedures that exist within and subsidiary to a theory or model.

There is no "law of gravity". There are several "laws of gravitational attraction" that actually boil down to equations.


----------



## coachn

BryanMaloney said:


> How many decimal points over do you want to round off? What is the criterion for rounding?
> 
> If you want absolute certainty, go find a cult leader. He will feed you all the certainty you want.
> 
> In some labs, it matters whether or not we deal with Penicillium veridians or Penicillium restrictans. Outside the lab, it's generally good enough to have "mold on the corn". It all depends on where you round the decimals, so to speak, and there is no universally valid standard for rounding the decimals.
> 
> Welcome to a world without training wheels.


You're arguing Quantity over Quality.  It's not too scientific to use half one's brain*.  One doesn't require training wheels to _know how to balance_, once one has _learned how to balance_.  How many decimal points are required?  None! once one realizes precision and accuracy are two ENTIRELY different creatures.  The former shall lead you to superfluity and vice when not subdued by wisdom. The latter tells you how close you are to your aims.  Woe to those who know no difference.



BryanMaloney said:


> In practice, among scientist, "laws" are actually rules of thumb or procedures that exist within and subsidiary to a theory or model.
> 
> There is no "law of gravity". There are several "laws of gravitational attraction" that actually boil down to equations.


Of which govern you with prejudice no matter how many times you may attempt to break them.

* No.  This is not directed at you my Brother.


----------



## Mathew1333

coachn said:


> No such thing as evolution?  Yet, you state that "adaption and scale relationship is key to understanding" no such thing? Most Interesting!



Just pointing out that Darwinism isn't necessarily evolution. Adaptation isn't normally contested, which I like to use as a form of synthesis with such a controversial topic. Scale relationships are key in bridging the gap between the divine aspect of human creation, and the scientific side of evolution.


----------



## Aeelorty

> Just pointing out that Darwinism isn't necessarily evolution. Adaptation isn't normally contested, which I like to use as a form of synthesis with such a controversial topic. Scale relationships are key in bridging the gap between the divine aspect of human creation, and the scientific side of evolution.



What do you mean by scale relationships? Science are religion are two different ways of gaining knowledge about the world and they do not mix nor are they intended to. The scientific method is designed specifically to avoid the preternatural.

Adaptation comes in a variety of forms, which specific kind are you talking about and how are you applying it?



> once one realizes precision and accuracy are two ENTIRELY different creatures. The former shall lead you to superfluity and vice when not subdued by wisdom. The latter tells you how close you are to your aims. Woe to those who know no difference.



Precision in the scientific sense refers to how your results group together, whether they are close together or far apart. Accuracy refers to how close to the "truth" or "reality" a result is, ie how close to the bulls-eye you are. Both are important, accuracy with out precision is not very helpful and precision with out accuracy isn't either. 

I am not entirely sure, Brother, what your stance is here, are you saying that science produces indisputable truths?


----------



## Aeelorty

Here is an essay that might be helpful, it compares mathematics, which does have facts and proofs, to science. 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof


----------



## coachn

Aeelorty said:


> ...Precision in the scientific sense refers to how your results group together, whether they are close together or far apart. Accuracy refers to how close to the "truth" or "reality" a result is, ie how close to the bulls-eye you are. Both are important, accuracy with out precision is not very helpful and precision with out accuracy isn't either.



Precision in a scientific sense does not have to do with grouping together.  It has to do with how you express a result.



Aeelorty said:


> ...I am not entirely sure, Brother, what your stance is here, are you saying that science produces indisputable truths?


What I'm saying is science does not produce truth.  It reveals models that explain. It is still up to the person reviewing such revelations to find their own truth.


----------



## Mathew1333

Aeelorty said:


> What do you mean by scale relationships? Science are religion are two different ways of gaining knowledge about the world and they do not mix nor are they intended to. The scientific method is designed specifically to avoid the preternatural.
> 
> Adaptation comes in a variety of forms, which specific kind are you talking about and how are you applying it?
> 
> 
> 
> Precision in the scientific sense refers to how your results group together, whether they are close together or far apart. Accuracy refers to how close to the "truth" or "reality" a result is, ie how close to the bulls-eye you are. Both are important, accuracy with out precision is not very helpful and precision with out accuracy isn't either.
> 
> I am not entirely sure, Brother, what your stance is here, are you saying that science produces indisputable truths?



Regarding science and religion not mixing like oil and water; I'll have to disagree. In fact, I think they're complementary. More like a magnet. Polar opposites, but part of the same entity. The reason I bring up scale relations is the same. To understand the macrocosm one must understand the microcosm. But the mathematics we use go in two separate directions. And its clearly obvious that large scale objects are made up of microscopic particles. And regarding adaptation, I accept Darwinism as a template for long-term adaptation. Modern evolution, however, equates us to tadpoles, and I think were well past that point.


----------



## Aeelorty

Glad we agree on that last point coach : )

Matthew if you are saying that science and religion are both ways to view the world and gain knowledge then I agree with that. The methods each uses are different and don't work In the other system however. Each had its advantage and weaknesses. 


Modern evolution does not equate humans with tadpoles, unless you are referring to the idea that humans stay in adolescent stages longer than other species which is true.  If you are referring instead to the idea that we share ancestors with different species that is also well supported in a variety of ways such as genetics and fossil records.


----------



## coachn

Religion seeks to convey truths about humanity and things that are transcendent to this reality; Science seeks to reveal models of the internal and external world.  They both have their uses, and also are misused and abused when the people applying them make effort to do anything more than these.


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> A hypothesis should never be distinguished by being a silly idea. Hypothesis: Amyloid beta causes Alzheimer's disease. Alternative hypothesis: Amyloid beta is a result of Alzheimer's disease. Both are hypotheses. The first one, for a time, had the weight of greater evidence. Now, the weight is less unevenly distributed between the two hypotheses. Neither one is silly. Right now, current models still favor the first hypothesis, but there may be room to admit the second, or even both hypotheses within an overall theory explaining Alzheimer's disease. A hypothesis is not an "unproven theory". A hypothesis is never "proved", it is merely "insufficiently disfavored by the weight of current evidence". And no matter how much a hypothesis is insufficiently disfavored, it never becomes a theory in and of itself. Theory is the overall framework into which hypotheses might or might not fit.



These were quotes from the internet and with that I would like to just say...............ah Bonjour...........Lol  

Theory = SWAG

I always have a theory then come up with a hypothesis to try to prove it or test it.  Darwinian evolution to me is still a theory with one hypothesis ... conclusion that doesn't prove anything except that another hypothesis is needed to come up with a conclusion that really show proof.  Then and only then will I say it is not a theory.


----------



## Mathew1333

Aeelorty said:


> Glad we agree on that last point coach : )
> 
> Matthew if you are saying that science and religion are both ways to view the world and gain knowledge then I agree with that. The methods each uses are different and don't work In the other system however. Each had its advantage and weaknesses.
> 
> 
> Modern evolution does not equate humans with tadpoles, unless you are referring to the idea that humans stay in adolescent stages longer than other species which is true.  If you are referring instead to the idea that we share ancestors with different species that is also well supported in a variety of ways such as genetics and fossil records.



Thanks, I'll have to reform my opinion on evolution. And agree that science and religion are different studies, my point being they are part of one body; truth. For example, the Swartzchild proton scaling law for organized matter of mass in the universe.


----------



## Aeelorty

There are many hypotheses in evolutionary theory. My favorite is about the origins of birds to  dinosaurs,  to a specific group of raptors. It was predicted that medullary bone would show up when a Dino was pregnant wick is the case for birds.  This type of bone was found in a pregnant t rex. whole school s of Thor have developed around evolution including evolutionary psychology.


----------



## dfreybur

Aeelorty said:


> Haha pretty much. Scientist talk in degrees of probability. Don't believe me? Think about orbitals around an atom.



Heisenberg Uncertainty principle - The energy of observation effects the state of the observed thus limiting knowledge of objects on very small scales.  According to the principle an object can be so large that the uncertainty in its position is small compared to the size of an atom.  The size it takes for that is rather smaller than a baseball.  The smaller an object is the more random it's movement and position start to appear.  The Brownian motion of microscopic objects has a different cause and is much larger in scale but follows the same general principle.

There's far more to probability than the one described by those.  The orbits of planets and moons is described statistically.  The orbits have a described path plus an uncertainty around that described path.  Distant objects have a lot of uncertainty in their known positions.  When the Voyager probes passed Saturn I remember a point when it turned out Voyager 2 was headed for the center of Titan because the amount of uncertainty in it's position was several times its diameter.  A very hairy day was spent calculating corrections, transmitting burn orders, gathering feedback on the result.  The good quality data on the exact position of Titan reduced its uncertainty considerably that day - Titan is big enough for Heisenberg to be tiny compared to an atomic nucleus but it's very far away so it's hard to measure exactly.


----------



## coachn

This has been a fun and challenging thread.  Thanks to all who contributed, so far!  ;-)


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> These were quotes from the internet and with that I would like to just say...............ah Bonjour...........Lol
> 
> Theory = SWAG
> 
> I always have a theory then come up with a hypothesis to try to prove it or test it.  Darwinian evolution to me is still a theory with one hypothesis ... conclusion that doesn't prove anything except that another hypothesis is needed to come up with a conclusion that really show proof.  Then and only then will I say it is not a theory.



In science, there is, ultimately, only theory. The "germ theory of disease", for example. Saying that something is "only a theory" or dismissing something because it is called a "theory" only proves complete lack of understanding of science.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Mathew1333 said:


> Regarding science and religion not mixing like oil and water; I'll have to disagree. In fact, I think they're complementary. More like a magnet. Polar opposites, but part of the same entity. The reason I bring up scale relations is the same. To understand the macrocosm one must understand the microcosm. But the mathematics we use go in two separate directions. And its clearly obvious that large scale objects are made up of microscopic particles. And regarding adaptation, I accept Darwinism as a template for long-term adaptation. Modern evolution, however, equates us to tadpoles, and I think were well past that point.



Evolution only "equates us with tadpoles" if you accept the belief that science is supposed to supply moral guidance--that is, if you are a totalitarian who cannot accept that one is to use the right tool for the right job. No biology, psychology, sociology, chemistry, physics, political science, etc. can tell us what we ought to do, only how things have happened to have happened. What we ought to do has to be answered with different tools. If ones moral tool is based merely on the premise that humans are ontologically different than other animals, then ones moral tool is simply a very lousy moral tool. One might as well base morality upon race if one is going to base it on species.

That being said, one needn't go full PETA, either. After all, I may share several traits with a chimp, including far-off ancestors, but I'm obviously still not a chimp.


----------



## BryanMaloney

coachn said:


> You're arguing Quantity over Quality.



I was using "decimal points" in a metaphorical sense. Whether one talks about "quantity" or "quality" is often a matter of perspective. Quality: Autism vs. Alzheimer's. Quantity: Timing and amount of dysfunction of the amyloid beta precursor protein processing machinery.  These could actually turn out to be the same issue, just viewed from different "ends".


----------



## Mathew1333

^^ Which is why I bring up scale relationships. Every thing in science can be understood/ misunderstood through scales. To a human, a grain of sand is hardly worth observing. To an ant, its the cornerstone to a home. The closer one observes another depends on the accuracy of the resulting theory. ie: a football game to unscrupulous is just a bunch of guys running after a ball. To an NFL commentator, it is a predictable work if science

Sent from my XT907 using Freemason Connect HD mobile app


----------



## Aeelorty

> Which is why I bring up scale relationships. Everything in science can be understood/ misunderstood through scales. To a human, a grain of sand is hardly worth observing. To an ant, its the cornerstone to a home. The closer one observes another depends on the accuracy of the resulting theory. ie: a football game to unscrupulous is just a bunch of guys running after a ball. To an NFL commentator, it is a predictable work if science



Except there are scientist who do look at all levels from subatomic particles to the observable universe. Error and scaling is different. Error is about how accurate measurements are while scale is about size. Errors can be introduced by systematic and technical faults, the degree to what something is measured (using cm or mm or Pico meters etc.). Scale the way you're using it sounds more like level of detail, comparing a cell to the whole organism. Depending on the field looking at sand may be very important, take fracking for example. The football example plays more towards personal preference and desire to study a phenomenon.


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> In science, there is, ultimately, only theory. The "germ theory of disease", for example. Saying that something is "only a theory" or dismissing something because it is called a "theory" only proves complete lack of understanding of science.



No the only "Lack of understanding" is you don't believe my theory of what a theory is.  Why I say "only a theory" because everything is just theory to me until it is proven to a 100% or have faith the un proven part is true.  This is where some scientist have a problem where if there theory is widely except it is fact until disproved and what they should be saying is that it stands until another theory is widely excepted.  I only have to prove my theory not disprove your theory.  As humans we are not omnipotent.  I understand science but I am whole brain and also understand art.  I also don't try to tell someone they don't understand without knowing what is in there thoughts.   

As to Darwin all the reasons for branching are not proven except that the GAOTU touched things at that time of branch.


----------



## coachn

Aren't Theories merely "Approximating Models" that make effort to both explain and work with things in a more knowledgeable and predictable way?


----------



## Mathew1333

coachn said:


> Aren't Theories merely "Approximating Models" that make effort to both explain and work with things in a more knowledgeable and predictable way?



True, but all theories embed facts. And I hope that we could, at very least, all agree on those. 

Sent from my XT907 using Freemason Connect HD mobile app


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> No the only "Lack of understanding" is you don't believe my theory of what a theory is.  Why I say "only a theory" because everything is just theory to me until it is proven to a 100% or have faith the un proven part is true.  This is where some scientist have a problem where if there theory is widely except it is fact until disproved and what they should be saying is that it stands until another theory is widely excepted.  I only have to prove my theory not disprove your theory.  As humans we are not omnipotent.  I understand science but I am whole brain and also understand art.  I also don't try to tell someone they don't understand without knowing what is in there thoughts.
> 
> As to Darwin all the reasons for branching are not proven except that the GAOTU touched things at that time of branch.



I understand completely what you mean, it is also not what "theory" means when used by science. Thus, dismissing something merely because it is called "theory" is superstition. "Theory of gravity", "germ theory of disease", etc. You're starting to sound like Humpty Dumpty from the Alice books.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Aeelorty said:


> Except there are scientist who do look at all levels from subatomic particles to the observable universe. Error and scaling is different. Error is about how accurate measurements are while scale is about size. Errors can be introduced by systematic and technical faults, the degree to what something is measured (using cm or mm or Pico meters etc.). Scale the way you're using it sounds more like level of detail, comparing a cell to the whole organism. Depending on the field looking at sand may be very important, take fracking for example. The football example plays more towards personal preference and desire to study a phenomenon.



Actually, error is not about accuracy, either. Error could be about precision. A measurement can have a very low error and still be quite inaccurate--but it is very repeatable. Error could also be a measurement, itself, if innate variation. If you measure the heights of 1000 men, you can calculate the error of that measurement. Even if your individual measurements are Platonically perfect, you would still have an error for that measurement. This is because the error reflects deviation from the mean, which might or might not be due to inaccuracy.

Not all subjects should be treated like protons, identical and interchangeable.


----------



## coachn

Are all Protons Identical?  Could our precision not reveal differences?


----------



## jvarnell

coachn said:


> Aren't Theories merely "Approximating Models" that make effort to both explain and work with things in a more knowledgeable and predictable way?



Yes exactly


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> I understand completely what you mean, it is also not what "theory" means when used by science. Thus, dismissing something merely because it is called "theory" is superstition. "Theory of gravity", "germ theory of disease", etc. You're starting to sound like Humpty Dumpty from the Alice books.



What ever....Lets look at the "Theory of gravity"  When Isaac Newton Proposed his theory it was deemed right and good.  But it was lacking information that was expanded on by Einstin. So Einstin modified that theroy by introducing more information about space and other bodies with mass.  No Humpty there it happen when we think.   It is when we as humans think we know everything and try's to make others believe the way they do we get groups like the cult of Darwin even though we know things like there is a missing line in the tree in many places.


----------



## jvarnell

And yes I do like this conversion a lot it pushes me to grow. But the way I grow is by trying to prove my thoughts out and not trying to disprove others.


----------



## Aeelorty

> No the only "Lack of understanding" is you don't believe my theory of what a theory is.  Why I say "only a theory" because everything is just theory to me until it is proven to a 100% or have faith the un proven part is true.  This is where some scientist have a problem where if there theory is widely except it is fact until disproved and what they should be saying is that it stands until another theory is widely excepted.  I only have to prove my theory not disprove your theory.  As humans we are not omnipotent.  I understand science but I am whole brain and also understand art.  I also don't try to tell someone they don't understand without knowing what is in there thoughts.



The scientific method can never prove anything. This is because the scientific method is about falsifying a hypothesis. You test it oen to see if it is false, if it is not and you have enough support from other experiments you can say that you have a theory. The method is why science does not produced facts or truths etc. Science does not produce proof or proofs, that is something that exist in mathamatics, science produces support for an idea, but that support is indirect. It can be thought of like outlining a shape, we don't touch it but by eliminating the surrounding space we produce a something that outlines the shape or so we think. 

The fundamental quality of the scientific method is that it seeks to falsify a hypthesis. 



> [cult of Darwin/QUOTE]
> 
> Current evolutionary theory is well supported, there are gaps in certain parts but compared to the overall support the theory has, it is well vetted. What specific things do you beleive are missing? Or a better question yet is to ask what is your full knowledge on current theories? How much have you really looked into them? It really is a vast field. I am just trying to understand how much knowledge you have on the topic to get a better picture of where you are coming from.


----------



## coachn

coachn said:
			
		

> Aren't Theories merely "Approximating Models" that make effort to both explain and work with things in a more knowledgeable and predictable way?





jvarnell said:


> Yes exactly



So, stating that it's "just a theory" does affirm that the person stating this does realize that theories are approximating models of reality that are used by some to deal with reality in more knowledgeable and predictable ways?


----------



## jvarnell

Aeelorty said:


> The scientific method can never prove anything. This is because the scientific method is about falsifying a hypothesis. You test it oen to see if it is false, if it is not and you have enough support from other experiments you can say that you have a theory. The method is why science does not produced facts or truths etc. Science does not produce proof or proofs, that is something that exist in mathamatics, science produces support for an idea, but that support is indirect. It can be thought of like outlining a shape, we don't touch it but by eliminating the surrounding space we produce a something that outlines the shape or so we think.
> 
> The fundamental quality of the scientific method is that it seeks to falsify a hypthesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [cult of Darwin/QUOTE]
> 
> Current evolutionary theory is well supported, there are gaps in certain parts but compared to the overall support the theory has, it is well vetted. What specific things do you beleive are missing? Or a better question yet is to ask what is your full knowledge on current theories? How much have you really looked into them? It really is a vast field. I am just trying to understand how much knowledge you have on the topic to get a better picture of where you are coming from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes just think about the all the points along the line where there is a fork?  What caused it to fork and not just evolve?
Click to expand...


----------



## Aeelorty

There are lots of forks we know about through the fossil record and genetics. The goths are a result of evolution where the differences became too divergent for reproduction between the two species and then more accumulating changes occurred. Changes in genetics they provided an advantage are what causes the changes and thus forks in the evolutionary tree


----------



## jvarnell

coachn said:


> So, stating that it's "just a theory" does affirm that the person stating this does realize that theories are approximating models of reality that are used by some to deal with reality in more knowledgeable and predictable ways?



I have a lot of things in my head that are just theories that when I model them have some verables that can not be disputed.  But missing or wrongly modeled thoughts are still a theory if there are more than one that believes that.  Think of how many theory's have been out there explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs.  Now most but not all think it was the asteroid that hit the Yucatan.  They all have some of the same data some more some less.  All theories and in my mind all "Just a theory".  At this time I believe the asteroid theory.  But if someone comes up with a theory that has more data that it is based on and goes through the process I may change my belief.


----------



## coachn

coachn said:
			
		

> So, stating that it's "just a theory" does affirm that the person stating this does realize that theories are approximating models of reality that are used by some to deal with reality in more knowledgeable and predictable ways?





jvarnell said:


> I have a lot of things in my head that are just theories that when I model them have some verables that can not be disputed.  But missing or wrongly modeled thoughts are still a theory if there are more than one that believes that.  Think of how many theory's have been out there explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs.  Now most but not all think it was the asteroid that hit the Yucatan.  They all have some of the same data some more some less.  All theories and in my mind all "Just a theory".  At this time I believe the asteroid theory.  But if someone comes up with a theory that has more data that it is based on and goes through the process I may change my belief.


So, we can strike out the part about them being used to deal with reality in more knowledgeable and predictable ways?


----------



## jvarnell

Aeelorty said:


> There are lots of forks we know about through the fossil record and genetics. The goths are a result of evolution where the differences became too divergent for reproduction between the two species and then more accumulating changes occurred. Changes in genetics they provided an advantage are what causes the changes and thus forks in the evolutionary tree



How did the genetics change?  There is no data that I know of that can answer that question.  There is fossil record before a fork  there is fossil record in the same line as before.  There is a record of what looks like a fork but why did the genetics change drastic enough to cause a fork or why did fork side one not evolve in the same manner as fork side two.  The theory I have is divine intervention and I know there are others that like this theory as much as I do.  But it is just a theory that I believe in as much as others don't.


----------



## jvarnell

coachn said:


> So, we can strike out the part about them being used to deal with reality in more knowledgeable and predictable ways?



No we can strike out the word "more".  More or less is supposition.


----------



## coachn

jvarnell said:


> How did the genetics change?  There is no data that I know of that can answer that question.  There is fossil record before a fork  there is fossil record in the same line as before.  There is a record of what looks like a fork but why did the genetics change drastic enough to cause a fork or why did fork side one not evolve in the same manner as fork side two.  The theory I have is divine intervention and I know there are others that like this theory as much as I do.  But it is just a theory that I believe in as much as others don't.


Viral Attacks upon the cells that viably create the next generation which add/delete/modify in such a cumulative way as to eventually make it impossible for them to procreate with the source species while at the same time procreating amongst themselves.


----------



## coachn

coachn said:
			
		

> So, we can strike out the part about them being used to deal with reality in more knowledgeable and predictable ways?





jvarnell said:


> No we can strike out the word "more".  More or less is supposition.



Then, we strike out the part about theories being used to deal with reality in knowledgeable and predictable ways?


----------



## Aeelorty

> The theory I have is divine intervention and I know there are others that like this theory as much as I do. But it is just a theory that I believe in as much as others don't.



Except this theory falls outside of the purview of science for that stated reason that it is not testable. It also appeals to the supernatural which is outside of the purview of science. So this is not a scientific theory but a religious theory. Different areas. 



> How did the genetics change? There is no data that I know of that can answer that question. There is fossil record before a fork there is fossil record in the same line as before. There is a record of what looks like a fork but why did the genetics change drastic enough to cause a fork or why did fork side one not evolve in the same manner as fork side two.



So we don't necessarily need the DNA out of fossils to show the changes. We contain genetic material of our precursors same goes for other species. For instance birds contain the genes of dinosaurs that they descended from. It has been shown that they contain the genes for teeth. Now why genes change is a chemical issue. Somewhere in the transposing of DNA into RNA and back results in mistakes sometimes. This genetic mutation is the same thing that causes cancer but instead of being deadly these changes provide a small benefit and theses small benefits add up over time for big changes and bigger benefits.


----------



## jvarnell

Aeelorty said:


> Except this theory falls outside of the purview of science for that stated reason that it is not testable. It also appeals to the supernatural which is outside of the purview of science. So this is not a scientific theory but a religious theory. Different areas.
> 
> 
> 
> So we don't necessarily need the DNA out of fossils to show the changes. We contain genetic material of our precursors same goes for other species. For instance birds contain the genes of dinosaurs that they descended from. It has been shown that they contain the genes for teeth. Now why genes change is a chemical issue. Somewhere in the transposing of DNA into RNA and back results in mistakes sometimes. This genetic mutation is the same thing that causes cancer but instead of being deadly these changes provide a small benefit and theses small benefits add up over time for big changes and bigger benefits.



This is all why it is "just a theory" yours not mine and what I am trying to point out is that there is not enough evidence to make me change for the theory that prevails in my mind at this time. I have faith to fill in the gaps science and religion can work together.


----------



## jvarnell

coachn said:


> Then, we strike out the part about theories being used to deal with reality in knowledgeable and predictable ways?



No that is a part of it just not all.


----------



## dfreybur

coachn said:


> Are all Protons Identical?  Could our precision not reveal differences?



The way that protons are not identical is quantum interconnectedness.  As usual with quantum mechanics any experiment that tests classical mechanics features of protons will show them as identical and any experiment that treats protons as waves will show them as identical.  Most experiments that treat protons as particles will show them as identical.

Currently most experiments that dealing with quantum interconnectedness work with photons and electrons so I don't know if the current state of the art is able to tell protons apart.


----------



## coachn

jvarnell said:


> No that is a part of it just not all.


What I'm hearing then is that Theories are perceived reality models used by their carriers to explain things; some are accurate, some are precise, some focus on reality, and others focus on fantasy and every last one of them are subject to evolving mutation, depending upon the memes surrounding and influencing them.


----------



## Aeelorty

> This is all why it is "just a theory" yours not mine and what I am trying to point out is that there is not enough evidence to make me change for the theory that prevails in my mind at this time. I have faith to fill in the gaps science and religion can work together.



I am just trying to point out that you are combing two logic systems that are different and not transnational. Moreover the theory proposed is well supported but you are not familiar enough with the evidence and are mistaking your lack of specific knowledge on the topic for evidence against it. It really is a cool topic once you start looking into it in depth and in a scientific manner and stop trying to reconcile two systems that don't need reconciliation in the first place.


----------



## jvarnell

coachn said:


> What I'm hearing then is that Theories are perceived reality models used by their carriers to explain things; some are accurate, some are precise, some focus on reality, and others focus on fantasy and every last one of them are subject to evolving mutation, depending upon the memes surrounding and influencing them.



Yes they are what  you have called "perceived reality" but you should never call something fantasy/myth.  You limit things to what you call reality because of your perceptions and I limit things to what I perceive to be reality.  If I wrote what you just said I would have left out the word "fantasy" to leave an open mind to what I have note yet perceived.


----------



## jvarnell

Aeelorty said:


> I am just trying to point out that you are combing two logic systems that are different and not transnational. Moreover the theory proposed is well supported but you are not familiar enough with the evidence and are mistaking your lack of specific knowledge on the topic for evidence against it. It really is a cool topic once you start looking into it in depth and in a scientific manner and stop trying to reconcile two systems that don't need reconciliation in the first place.



I have a background in science and technology but I attempting to show you that if you don't have an open mind to everything you will miss answers.  Just because someone has a theory and a lot of people believe it doesn't make it right for all time.  Newton was right, Enstin was right but there theories of gravity have differences and yet are the same.  There was a theory that when the collider at CERN had it first test with dark mater it would cause a black hole.  That was a theory a lot of scientist thought.  Did it, No.   It was a theory.  Darwin has a theory others have theories that are close but not the same.  Why is Darwin's right because he published it first.  Did Darwin steal his ideas from Alfred Russel Wallace's paper on natural selection.  

I have a theory that art is a higher order of science than what we call science today.  Think of fractal,  chaos and the sacred numbers of geometry.  This is like we came from a analog recording world to a digital and are getting so many digits of resolution in recording we are almost back to analog.


----------



## coachn

jvarnell said:


> Yes they are what  you have called "perceived reality" but you should never call something fantasy/myth.  You limit things to what you call reality because of your perceptions and I limit things to what I perceive to be reality.  If I wrote what you just said I would have left out the word "fantasy" to leave an open mind to what I have note yet perceived.



I included it because of the few people I have encountered who claim to have riden unicorns around on the north pole.


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> I have a background in science and technology but I attempting to show you that if you don't have an open mind to everything you will miss answers.  Just because someone has a theory and a lot of people believe it doesn't make it right for all time.  Newton was right, Enstin was right but there theories of gravity have differences and yet are the same.  There was a theory that when the collider at CERN had it first test with dark mater it would cause a black hole.  That was a theory a lot of scientist thought.  Did it, No.   It was a theory.  Darwin has a theory others have theories that are close but not the same.  Why is Darwin's right because he published it first.  Did Darwin steal his ideas from Alfred Russel Wallace's paper on natural selection.
> 
> I have a theory that art is a higher order of science than what we call science today.  Think of fractal,  chaos and the sacred numbers of geometry.  This is like we came from a analog recording world to a digital and are getting so many digits of resolution in recording we are almost back to analog.



There was a theory that some diseases can be caused by bacteria and not "miasma" or "evil spirits. However, it's "just a theory"--it's not called the "germ law of disease" after all, so people are free to ignore it on a whim and believe that all diseases are caused by evil spirits.

Regarding "art" and "science", how do you intend to express that theory in such a way that it is explicitly testable and these tests are repeatable? Merely throwing around "theory" to mean anything you want it to mean reduces the word "theory" to mean absolutely nothing.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Some people choose to refuse evolution. This is always ultimately done on religious grounds. They then make up all kinds of rationalizations to pretend to sound "scientific" about it. Why not just be honest and admit the rejection is on religious grounds? There is nothing wrong with this. Inventing flat-out lies like "creation science" and "intelligent design" only makes people look foolish. Just be honest and admit to religious grounds. Why buy into the very paradigm of empirical science that one rejects by flatly rejecting evolutionary theory.

The scientific response to a model that is still "undecided" by consensus is to to run around hooting that it's false or "just a theory". The scientific response is to simply suspend judgment, neither believing nor disbelieving.


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> And yes I do like this conversion a lot it pushes me to grow. But the way I grow is by trying to prove my thoughts out and not trying to disprove others.



I try to disprove myself, as well. I am an actual working scientist. Thus, when an issue is scientific, I apply the scientific method, which does not mean "proving". It means attempting to disprove. That's how science works. Note I do not say I am "from a scientific background". I am a scientist. Look me up in PubMed. Most of my work is done with a Dr. D.K. Lahiri and involves Alzheimer's.


----------



## coachn

BryanMaloney said:


> ...Merely throwing around "theory" to mean anything you want it to mean reduces the word "theory" to mean absolutely nothing.


Yup.  BTW - There's a theory floating around out there that says if you repeat anything often enough, no matter how wrong or insane it might be, people eventually come around to making that their way of thinking.  

But it's ONLY a theory.


----------



## Aeelorty

My issue, and scientist in general, Is that creationism doesn't follow the rules of the scientific method.


----------



## coachn

Aeelorty said:


> My issue, and scientist in general, Is that creationism doesn't follow the rules of the scientific method.


That's because it is not scientific, no matter how anyone tries to frame or reframe it.  It is religious; which, as I understand it, does not follow the scientific method.  

Does anyone here know what method it does follow?


----------



## tob

I never believe in it...

mu gilo


----------



## Aeelorty

I doesn't really follow any method it mixes empirical evidence and beliefs (not really hypotheses even) that are assumed to be in capable of being falsified.


----------



## jvarnell

I believe every statement I made was to invoke though and I have found out very quickly how people think that an induction and offence is really a defense of the theory they back.  I think to really gain knowledge we can not divide what has been called myth and science here.  they do mix.  What was myth 20 years a go is being found to be fact today.  Like the town of Jericho.  At fist it was said to not be a town at all.  Now they have found it with the walls down and as the are allowed to excavated.  We can never know it the account in the bible happened but it is written history.  In the Darwin story we have archaeology without any written account.  You would think more information was better than not.  Archaeology is finding more things that don't fit the theories of today all the time.  When these things are found what happens if the don't fit the prevailing theory?  The science try's to fist discredit the evidence and if the evidence holds out they then discredit the one that found it.  How scientific is that.


----------



## Aeelorty

> You would think more information was better than not.  Archaeology is finding more things that don't fit the theories of today all the time.  When these things are found what happens if the don't fit the prevailing theory?  The science try's to fist discredit the evidence and if the evidence holds out they then discredit the one that found it.  How scientific is that.



Finding evidence that contradicts the current theories is what every scientist hopes to find.  Why do you think people we so excited about the faster than light neutrino speeds out of Italy a few years ago (it was a error in the experiment in the end)? When we find something that contradicts the current theories the first thing to do is make sure the new information is legitamate. That means that the evidence actually contradicts something already well supported and that the conclusions being drawn from it are accurate, that the data wasn't fabricated or manipulated in some way. 



> The science try's to fist discredit the evidence and if the evidence holds out they then discredit the one that found it.  How scientific is that



This is exactly how scinece works, you try to falsify a hypothesis, make sure it is repeatable and that the conclusions being drawn fit the data. Often there are people who draw conclusions without enough evidence or biased on beleifs that are not scientific. 

The reaction to your introduction was a scinetific one, it was discreditied because it lacked merit, which is appropriate because we are discussing a scientific idea. When an idea is introduced into science it is well known that the goal of others will be to discredit it, and if you have done your job correctly that will be hard for them to do. Its like building a wall for defense. You expect people tp try to knock it down and if you built it well then it should hold up for the time being untill someone comes up with a way to break though it. Then once that happens you take your experience and try to build another one untill that gets knocked down. 

Now religion does not work on that principle. Can I come in and falsify your beliefs, especially ones that tell you to take them on faith alone? Most people will say no to that. That is why science and religion work differently, in science there is nothing sacred that is not open to questioning. How many churches focus on trying to disprove God so that they can say he might exist, not that he does exist as a matter of face, but that he might possibly exist?


----------



## Aeelorty

I find this comment on Climate change particularly relavent for this converstation 



> One of the report's authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford
> University's Climate Research Network, has said that people should not look to
> the IPCC for a “bible” on climate change.
> 
> Professor Allen, who admits “we need to look very carefully about what the
> IPCC does in future”, said that he could not comment on the report as it was
> still considered to be in its draft stages.
> 
> However, he added: “It is a complete fantasy to think that you can compile an
> infallible or approximately infallible report, that is just not how science
> works.
> 
> “It is not a bible, it is a scientific review, an assessment of the
> literature. Frankly both sides are seriously confused on how science works - the
> critics of the IPCC and the environmentalists who credit the IPCC as if it is
> the gospel."
> 
> Scientist were constantly revising their research to account for new data, he
> said.


----------



## Aeelorty

Here is an article about a guy who has no understanding of science, commenly called a quack. 

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...in+(Opposing+Views+-+Issues,+Experts,+Answers)


----------



## jvarnell

I am not going to defend the content or reject the content with out doing my own review.  This is this guys theory and because of some facts about mammals he has come to this theory.  Men can not have children without a woman, women have the most nurturing personality of the sexes. I don't come to the same conclusions he has but the information he used had him come to that theory.  I am not going to cut him down or try to disprove his theory I am going to make sure my theory has more facts and evidence than his and they can compete at the same level of human consciousness.  This is how pier review happens not to have a hypothesis to disprove, but have a new hypothesis to prove something in this way you want your theory to be reported.  You can build on their research and even use it to prove your point.  If you disprove part of there theory you disprove everything and can not use any part of there research.  Bro. Aeelorty you have just pointed out the point I have been talking about.


----------



## Aeelorty

If you disprove part of a theory it doesn't disprove  the whole thing. You don't prove anything you only support it and support is gained from being unable to falsify something using tests or observations.


----------



## jvarnell

If someone says "I believe Darwin theory of evolution is wrong" and then quote him in your theory we don't understand if the part you used of his work is better than what you did not use.  If you just say "I have a theory that is deferent than Darwin's theory but uses some of his data" it will show you have a understanding of his conclusion but have a  deferent one.


----------



## Aeelorty

Your wording is bit confusing. Are you saying that people can use the same data to support differing arguments?  I agree with that.  What is your theory exactly because I would hate to be arguing over and agreement.


----------



## Benjamin Baxter

Gateway420 said:


> I become a freemason to get rich because i don't want to work. I also want a girlfriend so i hope there are benefits. I like to also add that all masons should get a free car for joining.
> 
> Freemason Connect HD



I hate to tell you joined for the wrong reasons sir. You must be disappointed or did you get all these things. This is not what freemasonry about at all.

Freemason Connect HD


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> I believe every statement I made was to invoke though and I have found out very quickly how people think that an induction and offence is really a defense of the theory they back.  I think to really gain knowledge we can not divide what has been called myth and science here.  they do mix.  What was myth 20 years a go is being found to be fact today.  Like the town of Jericho.  At fist it was said to not be a town at all.  Now they have found it with the walls down and as the are allowed to excavated.  We can never know it the account in the bible happened but it is written history.  In the Darwin story we have archaeology without any written account.  You would think more information was better than not.  Archaeology is finding more things that don't fit the theories of today all the time.  When these things are found what happens if the don't fit the prevailing theory?  The science try's to fist discredit the evidence and if the evidence holds out they then discredit the one that found it.  How scientific is that.



Have you ever actually met a scientist? What research have you done? Where are your publications? What is your field? The first and most sensible thing to do when finding apparently anomalous data is to question the data--that is always the most sensible thing to do, because it is the height of self-serving arrogance to think "My data collection methods are infallible". Infallibility is a dogmatic's approach, not a scientist's. Then, if the methods are still strong, you have to see if it fits in a conservative manner. Destroying every model merely from one piece of data is also extremely arrogant and smacks of the sin of pride. If it doesn't, and you cannot come up with a model that fits the data as well as the old model, you wait until more data arrives. Simply saying "We can't explain it, we must all become literal Biblical creationists" is extremely prideful and sinful. It is the height of arrogance and pride. If enough information amasses that a better model can be actually built, then it is built.


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> I am not going to defend the content or reject the content with out doing my own review.  This is this guys theory and because of some facts about mammals he has come to this theory.  Men can not have children without a woman, women have the most nurturing personality of the sexes. I don't come to the same conclusions he has but the information he used had him come to that theory.  I am not going to cut him down or try to disprove his theory I am going to make sure my theory has more facts and evidence than his and they can compete at the same level of human consciousness.  This is how pier review happens not to have a hypothesis to disprove, but have a new hypothesis to prove something in this way you want your theory to be reported.  You can build on their research and even use it to prove your point.  If you disprove part of there theory you disprove everything and can not use any part of there research.  Bro. Aeelorty you have just pointed out the point I have been talking about.



What actual, real, professionally-published peer-reviewed papers have you authored? Really? I'd like to see a publication list if you are going to lecture on how "pier review" [sic] actually works. Here are some of mine: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Lrix8rUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

Since you see fit to lecture on "pier review" [sic], I eagerly await seeing some of your peer-reviewed publications.


----------



## jvarnell

At this point I see this discussion turning in to a, My thoughts are better than yours.  I am not in academia and don't take theory as fact.  I weigh all of my observations equal with theory and do not draw a line in the sand saying something is science or Myth.  All my real world review is of actual data that I know how it was recorded in the electric power industry so there is no theory involved.  But if I come up with future processes to enhance the way the electric grid operates which I guess is then a short term theory I always have human experiences (you call dogma) built in.  This is why views/theories out comes are better than my counterparts.  I know there is no so-called science in the human behaviour or in myth but you will see there is a pattern in everything that can be calculated.  

I know how per-review works that is why the un global warming report show there is man made global warming and that is because the scientist that shouted down their per's and tried to discredit them because they did not see the data the same way.

Like I stated out Darwinism is "Just a theory" so just keep telling me you are right and I am wrong and I don't care.  I have a new theory I will call it the Bully theory.  The theory is when a person that is an academic tells me I don't understand because I deal with known values. Also I can't disbelieve his theory even after I have reviewed his data and said something is missing.


----------



## Aeelorty

jvarnell said:


> At this point I see this discussion turning in to a, My thoughts are better than yours.  I am not in academia and don't take theory as fact.  I weigh all of my observations equal with theory and do not draw a line in the sand saying something is science or Myth.  All my real world review is of actual data that I know how it was recorded in the electric power industry so there is no theory involved.  But if I come up with future processes to enhance the way the electric grid operates which I guess is then a short term theory I always have human experiences (you call dogma) built in.  This is why views/theories out comes are better than my counterparts.  I know there is no so-called science in the human behaviour or in myth but you will see there is a pattern in everything that can be calculated.
> 
> I know how per-review works that is why the un global warming report show there is man made global warming and that is because the scientist that shouted down their per's and tried to discredit them because they did not see the data the same way.
> 
> Like I stated out Darwinism is "Just a theory" so just keep telling me you are right and I am wrong and I don't care.  I have a new theory I will call it the Bully theory.  The theory is when a person that is an academic tells me I don't understand because I deal with known values. Also I can't disbelieve his theory even after I have reviewed his data and said something is missing.



The issue is that the theory you purpose and others as well is not scientific, which led to the need to define science and how appealing to the Divine removes a theory from science. Quod erat demonstrandum. 

It's alright to purpose a new Theory but that theory will be attacked because all scientific theories are attacked by definition of the scientific method.  You haven't really provided evidence of your theory beyond it is your belief, which is not scientific evidence. This is why I said science and religion don't mix because they do not accept the same kinds of evidence.  I am not sing that one is better than the other only that they are different.


----------



## dfreybur

Aeelorty said:


> I find this comment on Climate change particularly relavent for this converstation



The science of evolution has evolved to include DNA genetics and genetic engineering.  While there are a lot of points remaining to be filled in the parts that are filled in work to better precision than we can currently measure.  All science comes with error bars.  The error bars on the mechanisms of genetic engineering are tiny.  If a scientist disagrees with a known mechanism of genetic engineering he's not going against the consensus.  He's incorrect.

The science of climatology went in my lifetime from predicting a new ice age to predicting extended warming.  All science comes with error bars.  The error bars that bracket climatology are large enough that a consensus among scientists is in use.  If a scientist disagrees with the consensus in climatology, he's going against the best conclusions of most of the experts in the field.

Climatology made for a good comparison with evolution before inheritance through DNA was worked out.  Since then they do not make good comparisons.  The error bars are very different.  Both have huge gaps missing in their material.  Don't let that confuse you when it comes to the level of experimental match of the details of the parts that are known.


----------



## Aeelorty

> The science of evolution has evolved to include DNA genetics and genetic engineering. While there are a lot of points remaining to be filled in the parts that are filled in work to better precision than we can currently measure. All science comes with error bars. The error bars on the mechanisms of genetic engineering are tiny. If a scientist disagrees with a known mechanism of genetic engineering he's not going against the consensus. He's incorrect.
> 
> The science of climatology went in my lifetime from predicting a new ice age to predicting extended warming. All science comes with error bars. The error bars that bracket climatology are large enough that a consensus among scientists is in use. If a scientist disagrees with the consensus in climatology, he's going against the best conclusions of most of the experts in the field.
> 
> Climatology made for a good comparison with evolution before inheritance through DNA was worked out. Since then they do not make good comparisons. The error bars are very different. Both have huge gaps missing in their material. Don't let that confuse you when it comes to the level of experimental match of the details of the parts that are known.



I meant the part about how people do not understand science, which is why I jumped into this conversation. Polls show that nearly 70% of Americans do not clearly understand science, which is alarming to me.


----------



## coachn

Aeelorty said:


> I meant the part about how people do not understand science, which is why I jumped into this conversation. Polls show that nearly 70% of Americans do not clearly understand science, which is alarming to me.


What's even more disturbing is 80% of Americans do not clearly understand polls and the remaining 20% have been known to fabricate statistics in the moment!


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> At this point I see this discussion turning in to a, My thoughts are better than yours.


 
You have seen fit to lecture everyone on how "pier review" [sic] works. I have undergone peer review for years and have the publications to prove it. Since you have seen fit to lecture ME on how MY field does things, I want to see evidence that you have actually EVER BEEN THROUGH IT. Otherwise, it's as silly as an American who once saw someone speaking Chinese lecture everyone on how speaking Chinese really works. So, since you are fit to lecture us all on how science is actually done and keep pulling out your "background" as proof of your competence, put your cards on the table.



> All my real world review is of actual data that I know how it was recorded in the electric power industry so there is no theory involved.


 
Really, no theory at all is involved in electrical power???? I'll talk to some physicists and see if there is no theory at all involved in electrical power.



> I know how per-review works that is why the un global warming report show there is man made global warming and that is because the scientist that shouted down their per's and tried to discredit them because they did not see the data the same way.



Have you ever actually even met a scientist? This is exactly the opposite of how science works. If I can find something that goes completely counter the current paradigm and can back it up, I would be a science golden boy, it's Nobel Prize time for me. Science is not like religion. It is NOT about just re-enforcing the current paradigm. Whoever says it is must be either utterly ignorant of science or a flat-out liar. Again, where are your peer-reviewed publications, since you see fit to lecture the world on what the process is or how it actually works?



> Like I stated out Darwinism is "Just a theory" so just keep telling me you are right and I am wrong and I don't care.  I have a new theory I will call it the Bully theory.  The theory is when a person that is an academic tells me I don't understand because I deal with known values. Also I can't disbelieve his theory even after I have reviewed his data and said something is missing.



Ah, yes, now you're going to go sulk because someone is wanting some intellectual honesty and rigor. If someone started lecturing the world on how "medicine really works", would you just blindly and foolishly take every word that person says or want something to back it up? Likewise, dismissing something merely because the word "theory" is attached to it is superstition. If it were called the "Law of Evolution" it would be no more or less true or false. If the Holy Trinity were called the "theory of the Holy Trinity" or there was a "theory of Atonement and Salvation", these would not magically become any less true for being called "theory".

Quote SPECIFICALLY wherein I stated that "dealing with known values" means that someone cannot understand. Reply to what I write.

If you are going to see fit to lecture the world on how science really works, so to speak, then it behooves you to show that you actually do work as a scientist.


----------



## BryanMaloney

coachn said:


> What's even more disturbing is 80% of Americans do not clearly understand polls and the remaining 20% have been known to fabricate statistics in the moment!



There is a 27.358889% margin of error on these numbers.


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> You have seen fit to lecture everyone on how "pier review" [sic] works. I have undergone peer review for years and have the publications to prove it. Since you have seen fit to lecture ME on how MY field does things, I want to see evidence that you have actually EVER BEEN THROUGH IT. Otherwise, it's as silly as an American who once saw someone speaking Chinese lecture everyone on how speaking Chinese really works. So, since you are fit to lecture us all on how science is actually done and keep pulling out your "background" as proof of your competence, put your cards on the table.
> 
> Really, no theory at all is involved in electrical power???? I'll talk to some physicists and see if there is no theory at all involved in electrical power.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever actually even met a scientist? This is exactly the opposite of how science works. If I can find something that goes completely counter the current paradigm and can back it up, I would be a science golden boy, it's Nobel Prize time for me. Science is not like religion. It is NOT about just re-enforcing the current paradigm. Whoever says it is must be either utterly ignorant of science or a flat-out liar. Again, where are your peer-reviewed publications, since you see fit to lecture the world on what the process is or how it actually works?
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, now you're going to go sulk because someone is wanting some intellectual honesty and rigor. If someone started lecturing the world on how "medicine really works", would you just blindly and foolishly take every word that person says or want something to back it up? Likewise, dismissing something merely because the word "theory" is attached to it is superstition. If it were called the "Law of Evolution" it would be no more or less true or false. If the Holy Trinity were called the "theory of the Holy Trinity" or there was a "theory of Atonement and Salvation", these would not magically become any less true for being called "theory".
> 
> Quote SPECIFICALLY wherein I stated that "dealing with known values" means that someone cannot understand. Reply to what I write.
> 
> If you are going to see fit to lecture the world on how science really works, so to speak, then it behooves you to show that you actually do work as a scientist.



Where I am at, at this time is to say to you is "What ever".  I work and am not able read or answer this thread sometime for many day I am not going and sulking.  What makes a man a scientist, engineer or artist is ambiguous. I can see you don't understand anything I am saying and you just attack my oppinion and I am going to not respond to this any more.


----------



## dfreybur

Aeelorty said:


> I meant the part about how people do not understand science, which is why I jumped into this conversation. Polls show that nearly 70% of Americans do not clearly understand science, which is alarming to me.



Very alarming.  There are people who treat science like a religion.  There are people who put religion and science in opposition.  It's terrible.


----------



## coachn

bryanmaloney said:


> there is a 27.358889% margin of error on these numbers.


lol!


----------



## dfreybur

Aeelorty said:


> Finding evidence that contradicts the current theories is what every scientist hopes to find.  Why do you think people we so excited about the faster than light neutrino speeds out of Italy a few years ago (it was a error in the experiment in the end)? When we find something that contradicts the current theories the first thing to do is make sure the new information is legitamate. That means that the evidence actually contradicts something already well supported and that the conclusions being drawn from it are accurate, that the data wasn't fabricated or manipulated in some way.



Tachyon neutrinos might not have been all that shocking.  Tachyons violation Einstein's general relativity but there are multiple competitors for GR.  In special relativity a particle can't be accelerated past C but there's nothing to say it can't be created already past C.  There are many cases were particles are created by a collision between two very high energy photons so C is already in play.  In this sense it would be a puzzle similar to matter versus anti-matter - Why is there so much more matter than anti-matter in the universe?  The particle version would become - Why are there so many more sub-C particles generated than tachyons?

Confirming the observation would have overthrown Einstein's GR in favor of others.

There's a joke among scientists -

A - The data didn't come out according to theory.  It's frustrating.

B - There's theory and there's the universe.  I betting on the universe not on the theory.  Which one are you betting on?

Doug's joke corollary -

D - Given Einstein's track record I don't see a ton of down side betting on his version of GR over the competing ones.  So far the universe seems to be on Einstein's side for anything not quantum.  That's not even counting the fact that his Nobel Prize was in quantum mechanics ...


----------



## ej6267

Two things:  I wish this thread had not used Darwin's name. Saying Darwin or "Darwinian" is akin to saying Freud or Freudian therapy-the science has progressed immeasurably in the last hundred and fifty years from when Darwin wrote, and the nature of the scientific method has corrected errors and filled in many blanks. The name alone has become a hot button issue.

Second, I am noticing a tone of rancor that is entirely out of place in a discussion between brothers. Remember, to preserve the reputation of the fraternity unsullied must be our constant care, so please try to remember what that entails. Just my thoughts on the matter...


----------



## cherrynobel

The science of evolution has changed a lot since Darwin many new species and ancient species detailing about the evolution of past and present species have come up   still we have to keep in mind that just like the theory of evolution  many have changed, the best example being of classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. 
Also to be noted is that  the theory given by Darwin or some other old theories like of Dalton atom theory have influenced many new theories and are still thought in school's. But to completely agree with Darwin's theory in present time will not be suitable so I will say no to it.


----------



## BroBook

No , a monkey did not turn into a man if so we would not still have monkeys ! Would we?


My Freemasonry


----------



## coachn

BroBook said:


> No , a monkey did not turn into a man if so we would not still have monkeys ! Would we?
> 
> 
> My Freemasonry


With God, all things are possible.


----------



## BroBook

coachn said:


> With God, all things are possible.



Yes sir , but the Most High God does miracles not magic!!! Primitive man was not walking upright because he was depressed from being kicked out of the garden!!!


My Freemasonry


----------



## BryanMaloney

BroBook said:


> No , a monkey did not turn into a man if so we would not still have monkeys ! Would we?



That's not how evolution works. It does not require replacement. Who taught you such nonsense?


----------



## BroBook

BryanMaloney said:


> That's not how evolution works. It does not require replacement. Who taught you such nonsense?



What's this missing link thing and who mentioned replaced I thought ( comes from not knowing) the primary idea was that life as we know it is a random act  and man used to be a monkey but anyway what are we/humans  going to be when we stop being stupid!!! And noticed  you said it works as if it is true whether I understand it or not.  I  ran into a book "Darwinism 
Under the microscope 


My Freemasonry


----------



## BryanMaloney

BroBook said:


> What's this missing link thing and who mentioned replaced I thought ( comes from not knowing) the primary idea was that life as we know it is a random act  and man used to be a monkey but anyway what are we/humans  going to be when we stop being stupid!!! And noticed  you said it works as if it is true whether I understand it or not.  I  ran into a book...



First, I've run into books that attack all Christian beliefs, too. They make very tight, self-consistent cases. I've run into atheist books that also make very tight cases. Does that mean you must become atheist--I didn't.

Second, you need to go slap your biology teachers silly for being so stupid. Evolutionary theory AT NO TIME states silly nonsense like "man used to be a monkey". When you start by telling outright lies about something you oppose, it's easy to demolish them, but then your own life is built on lies.

Third, running around attacking Darwin's works, is as silly as claiming that physics is false because Aristotle's physics no longer holds up. Why are people unwilling to understand that science moves on. Science does not turn early scientists into infallible saints that must never be disagreed with?


----------



## dfreybur

BroBook said:


> What's this missing link thing and who mentioned replaced I thought ( comes from not knowing) the primary idea was that life as we know it is a random act  and man used to be a monkey but anyway what are we/humans  going to be when we stop being stupid!!!



That does show you have no idea what evolution is, either the Darwinian form of a century and a half ago or the current formulation of evolution.  Something that puzzles me - If someone has no idea at all what a system is, can they really be said to either believe it or disbelieve in that system?  It strikes me very much like someone who claims to be a vegetarian because they don't eat read meat.  What they say doesn't make any sense.  Rephrasing what Bro Bryan wrote you should definitely fire your elementary school science teachers.



> And noticed  you said it works as if it is true whether I understand it or not.



I said that.  The universe works the way it works whether any of us believe it or not.  Accurate descriptions work whether any of us believe them or not.  Approximations work within limited parameters whether we believe them or not or understand the parametrized limitations or not.  Inaccurate descriptions fail whether we believe them or not.  The universe doesn't change for failing to understand some principle.  We don't stop falling because we fail to understand or believe in gravity.  Evolution is one of those approximate descriptions and it has very well known parametrized limitations.


----------



## BroBook

Now one thing for sure I am not a biologist and have not been to school in years but I am doing some research now to
See how did I get so misunderstood or confused maybe someone can explain to me what was implied by the poster that shows the progression of man now I know change does happen what I really meant by my original statement was if survival is the reason for change why would any previous models be still in existence and for the record you seem kind of irritated 



My Freemasonry


----------



## BroBook

This is implying what???


My Freemasonry


----------



## dfreybur

BroBook said:


> View attachment 3751
> 
> This is implying what?



It's an obsolete representation of what was then the best available evidence of how our ancestors changed over time.  The fact that the last picture doesn't look anything like a combination of the two of us is one of its many problems.  As the evidence grows it becomes more obsolete over time but parts of the pattern continue.  That the first image is not like any of the current apes on the planet is one of its better points.  Our nearest shared ancestor wasn't the same as any being alive today.

It represents how the divine arrived at having the two of us in this world to have this conversation using the best evidence available at the time.  The basic system of genetics and evolution that led to this result is wonderful in its elegance, the simplicity of its principles, the complexity of its results, the consistency of the evidence.

You will note that such a chart can be made for every living being on the planet from the smallest lizard in the dust to the biggest whale in the sea.  Yours and mine would be the same as we are blood kin going back only a small number of generations.  The same chart for a chimp would show a sequence of different types of ape as they changed over the long span of time, finally ending in a generalization of the chimps of today's world.  If we want to see our charts as a progression we might want to see the chimp's chart as a meandering.  A chimp might see his chart is a history of how his people became better at ruling the forest with the human chart showing how bizarre humans became as their ancestors left his forest.

I can try to have a broad perspective - One chart shows how the divine led to us having this conversation, but that's only our chart.  Every one of God's creatures has such a chart and we are all of part of the same world.  Remember the part of the second degree that talked about the worlds around us all following the same laws of nature?  The same is true of all of God's creatures.  The symmetries of nature at all scales.


----------



## BroBook

Okay my brother that was brotherly love!!! 


My Freemasonry


----------



## mrm113

of course the chart seems that we have the same generic evolutionary growth as every other species on earth, but in my opinion i feel that our evolution jump was faster than other lifeforms on earth.there had to be divine intervention in between the neanderthal age and homo-Erectus age.how we evolved in such a short period of time, we would be on the verge of evolution as we speak......i don't see the human race making dramatic evolutionary changes(physical) any time soon.lol
but i could be wrong though.


Brother Marvin Williams Jr 
William F. Burk Lodge #230
New Jersey


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dfreybur

mrm113 said:


> i don't see the human race making dramatic evolutionary changes(physical) any time soon



The rise of genetic engineering suggest otherwise.  We are in the process of going from no knowledge of genetics a couple centuries ago to no knowledge of the mechanics of genetics half a century ago to extensive control of the genetics of other species in the last couple of decades.  Many of us alive now will see movement from repairing specific defects towards designer babies.  I'm a fan of the movie Gattaca and I see "interesting times" happening when I am in retirement.


----------



## Bro Darren

dfreybur said:


> The rise of genetic engineering suggest otherwise.  We are in the process of going from no knowledge of genetics a couple centuries ago to no knowledge of the mechanics of genetics half a century ago to extensive control of the genetics of other species in the last couple of decades.  Many of us alive now will see movement from repairing specific defects towards designer babies.  I'm a fan of the movie Gattaca and I see "interesting times" happening when I am in retirement.



The human race loves to explore and discover the hidden mechanics of life. Our imagination combined with a  deep desire to unlock these things have lead to amazing discoveries that will shape our future in ways we can not imagine. 

I have no doubt that we will go from repair to design but what interests me is what comes after that. 



Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jjjjjggggg

Dfreybur- very much enjoying your responses... well reasoned and informed!


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jjjjjggggg

One of the funniest episodes on Futurama was about evolution.

http://youtu.be/TTOla3TyfqQ


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Brennan

I just watched that the other day. Love that show.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Aeelorty

http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/event/Nye-Ham-Debate/

Bill Nye the Science guy is going to debate on evolution vs creationism on 2/4. It should be a respectful debate on the topic that will help many of people understand the concept of biological evolution.


----------



## CuAllaidh

Wow... I knew this thread would be.... contentious, but still...As I see it a big part of the problem is people don't understand the word "Theory". There are two definitions of the word, the two definitions are similar but separate enough that when using the word care must be taken. You see to a layman theory simply means a "supposition" or an "idea" in science however Theory has a much more demanding definition. A theory must be testable, reproducible and must be repeatedly confirmed through testing. To dismiss a scientific idea as just a random thought just because it is a "Theory" is absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding of Scientific Process. As far as science is concerned everything is just a theory. Gravity is a theory, the earth rotating around the sun is a theory, the ground existing below us is theory, water being wet is a theory, and yes evolution is a theory. Evolution is well documented though, it is well understood (no not perfectly), and we have seen examples of evolution in progress. This does not, to my mind, put religion at odds with science, there is no conflict. The bible (and every other religious text) is full of allegory, I think Mason's understand this better than many others. God creating the world in 7 days is not contradictory to the geological and biological evolution taking countless eons.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Aeelorty said:


> http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/event/Nye-Ham-Debate/
> 
> Bill Nye the Science guy is going to debate on evolution vs creationism on 2/4. It should be a respectful debate on the topic that will help many of people understand the concept of biological evolution.



It's hosted by "The Creation Museum". You'll pardon me if I don't expect a level playing field. Kudo's to Bill, though, for taking this on regardless of the venue.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

CuAllaidh said:


> The bible (and every other religious text) is full of allegory...



Says you. 

Alas, many believers will tell you that, "No. The Bible is complete and unerring word of God." Still more will feel free to pick and choose which passages to interpret as allegory and which to take literally. It's all good, as long as we can all be reasonable and recognize that it's belief we're talking about here, not verifiable fact, or even "mere scientific theory".As Thomas Jefferson put it, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to  say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks  my leg." It's only when one group of believers feels the need to impose their beliefs on others that problems arise, and _that_ is something every Mason should understand completely.


----------



## BryanMaloney

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> "No. The Bible is complete and unerring word of God."



To which one answers "What is the Biblical value of pi?"


----------



## coachn

BryanMaloney said:


> To which one answers "What is the Biblical value of pi?"


3


----------



## dfreybur

CuAllaidh said:


> A theory must be testable, reproducible and must be repeatedly confirmed through testing. To dismiss a scientific idea as just a random thought just because it is a "Theory" is absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding of Scientific Process. As far as science is concerned everything is just a theory. Gravity is a theory, the earth rotating around the sun is a theory, the ground existing below us is theory, water being wet is a theory, and yes evolution is a theory. Evolution is well documented though, it is well understood (no not perfectly), and we have seen examples of evolution in progress.



Every theory must have numerical error bars to describe its current level of uncertainty - How many digits of accuracy are there in its numerical predictions.  Most fields of science do not see mention of these error bars in public discourse.  The example that is in public is climatology - The stated certainty is 95%.  That means the error bar is 5%.  That means predictions of climatology are accurate to one and a half digits.  Among scientific fields that's actually pretty miserable.  The science of evolution has progressed to the point of genetic engineering.  While the effects of gene changes are currently very uncertain, the fact that deliberate gene changes effect offspring and the fact that gene changes consist of changing DNA means evolution is accurate to several digits and it has been since Watson and Crick.  In fact its gotten better with epigenetics and phenol groups.  Several digits sounds good when compared to climatology, but it isn't great when compared to inorganic chemistry.  I've never touched a chemical lab instrument that gives results accurate enough to change any entry in any table of physical chemistry results.  The current level of the error bar for inorganic chemistry is that many digits.  In physics string theory didn't used to even make any predictions so it got called "not even wrong" because its error bar is 100%.

So when it comes to discussing fact versus theory the question becomes how many digits of accuracy.  Saying that inorganic chemistry is fact reflects the reality of how many digits of accuracy its predictions have.  If you disbelieve in inorganic chemistry that's equivalent to being surprised every time your car starts because you don't believe a lead acid battery works.



> This does not, to my mind, put religion at odds with science, there is no conflict.



On the one hand religion may chose to be in conflict with science.  There are many religions in the world and only a few do.  Most religions don't care about the conclusions of science.  On the other hand science may not chose to be in conflict with religion.  Science doesn't work that way.  It's conclusions follow a process that does not care what any one religion teaches.  Saying whether there is or is not conflict isn't up to science.


----------



## CuAllaidh

Great expansion on Theory.



dfreybur said:


> On the one hand religion may chose to be in conflict with science.  There are many religions in the world and only a few do.  Most religions don't care about the conclusions of science.  On the other hand science may not chose to be in conflict with religion.  Science doesn't work that way.  It's conclusions follow a process that does not care what any one religion teaches.  Saying whether there is or is not conflict isn't up to science.



I would argue that religion itself does not conflict with science, but rather certain religious fanatics choose to be in conflict with science, but that's just quibbling over minor details. Of course Science cannot be in conflict with religion, but again Scientists can choose to be in conflict. To me both sides that choose to see the other as opposing are fanatics and really need to gain a little perspective.


----------



## Bro Darren

Here is a little article i found in todays Technology section of our local on-line news site that I thought I'd share

http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...o-nature-article/story-fn5fsgyc-1226813438708


----------



## jvarnell

CuAllaidh said:


> Great expansion on Theory.
> 
> I would argue that religion itself does not conflict with science, but rather certain religious fanatics choose to be in conflict with science, but that's just quibbling over minor details. Of course Science cannot be in conflict with religion, but again Scientists can choose to be in conflict. To me both sides that choose to see the other as opposing are fanatics and really need to gain a little perspective.



I with you CuAllaidh some of these guys don't know what the word "Theory" means.  We have several people here that think theory means trouth but they are mistaken.


----------



## CuAllaidh

jvarnell said:


> I with you CuAllaidh some of these guys don't know what the word "Theory" means.  We have several people here that think theory means trouth but they are mistaken.



Based on your previous responses in this thread I am going to have to assume you missed my point and that you don't clearly understand what the word "Theory" means from a scientific point of view. I am not saying that because evolution is a theory that it might not be true, evolution is a fact, pure and simple, that doesn't make it less of a theory.


----------



## jjjjjggggg

Saw this article in my Facebook feed, thought it relevant to the discussion: http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/10-myths-misconceptions-and-mischaracterizations-of-evolution/


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jvarnell

CuAllaidh said:


> Based on your previous responses in this thread I am going to have to assume you missed my point and that you don't clearly understand what the word "Theory" means from a scientific point of view. I am not saying that because evolution is a theory that it might not be true, evolution is a fact, pure and simple, that doesn't make it less of a theory.


The theard question was do you beleive in darwins evelution.  This is a just a theory and as everyone knows there were more of darwins published theorys that have been disproved than excepeted.  As you see I I said excepted not proven becoucse that is how you treat theorys.  You except them or or not.

Even today on h2 they were talking about a rejected theory while talking about how lock ness was made.


----------



## BroBook

Speaking of DNA changing anyone seen "Heroes" 


Bro Book


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> The theard question was do you beleive in darwins evelution.  This is a just a theory and as everyone knows there were more of darwins published theorys that have been disproved than excepeted.  As you see I I said excepted not proven becoucse that is how you treat theorys.  You except them or or not.
> 
> Even today on h2 they were talking about a rejected theory while talking about how lock ness was made.



Dismissing any science with the words "just a theory" only betrays ignorance of how science works in the real world. This has been hashed over before. The use of "theory" in the sciences is NOT how the word is vulgarly used. What is called "theory" vulgarly would be called a "hypothesis" in the sciences. Likewise, UNLIKE religious dogmas, science does not rely upon 100% infallibility in all minute details of every single thing a person said for one of that person's models to be valid. The way that a silly ENTERTAINMENT channel might use the word "theory" HAS NO BEARING AT ALL on how the term is used in the sciences. After all, we might as well flat-out reject the "germ theory of disease" as "just a theory"--after all the word "theory" appears in its name. Therefore, people can just reject it. Likewise peole can just go around pretending gravity doesn't exist, since it's "just" Newton's theory of gravity.

Contrary to the blatherings of demagogues who profit from misleading the ignorant, calling something a "theory" in the sciences DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING AS USING THE WORD IN COMMON LANGAUGE.


----------



## dfreybur

BroBook said:


> Speaking of DNA changing anyone seen "Heroes"



One episode.  I prefer the X Men comics and movies that seem to have inspired the series (indirectly enough that no copyright infringement claims appeared in the news).  Nice fiction but not how evolution works.  Was there some sort of outside intervention in Heroes?  Outside intervention of some sort would count as intelligent design or hostile tinkering however you perceive you does the editing.


----------



## CuAllaidh

jvarnell said:


> The theard question was do you beleive in darwins evelution.  This is a *just a theory* and as everyone knows there were more of darwins published theorys that have been disproved than excepeted.  As you see I I said excepted not proven becoucse that is how you treat theorys.  You except them or or not.
> 
> Even today on h2 they were talking about a rejected theory while talking about how lock ness was made.


*Bold added by me for emphasis

There is no "JUST A THEORY" in science. This is the point we are trying to get across here. The theory about lockness is NOT a scientific theory it is a theory in the usage most people are familiar with, in science it would be a hypothesis at best. Everything in science is just a theory. Nothing it proven 100% in science, not ever, its the nature of the beast. While it is true that some theories have more evidence than others, and some have flaws, evolution is one that is pretty well understood. Sure Darwin didn't have it 100% correct, we all know that, however it was a starting point. If you think there has been more disproved than accepted then then you simply don't understand Darwin's complete theories.


----------



## dfreybur

CuAllaidh said:


> ... then then you simply don't understand Darwin's complete theories.



There's also the fact that in science theories advance as they are improved, but they can still be known by the name of their founder or a scientist who brought major revisions.

Classical physics stages go Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Einstein.  Using the expression "Darwinian evolution" does refer to today's formulation.  It also has the unfortunate name of the "modern dogma of molecular biology".  Watson and Crick merged the Darwin and Mendel branches plus the lock and key system of enzyme catalysis into the modern dogma.  Crappy use of the word dogma in my opinion.  Worse even than how it got used in Morals and Dogmas.


----------



## ej6267

One of my favorite vloggers said that he ran into his music classes when he was 14 and yelled "I don't believe in your music, it's just a theory!" and ran out again, leaving a puzzled looking class.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> Dismissing any science with the words "just a theory" only betrays ignorance of how science works in the real world. This has been hashed over before. The use of "theory" in the sciences is NOT how the word is vulgarly used. What is called "theory" vulgarly would be called a "hypothesis" in the sciences. Likewise, UNLIKE religious dogmas, science does not rely upon 100% infallibility in all minute details of every single thing a person said for one of that person's models to be valid. The way that a silly ENTERTAINMENT channel might use the word "theory" HAS NO BEARING AT ALL on how the term is used in the sciences. After all, we might as well flat-out reject the "germ theory of disease" as "just a theory"--after all the word "theory" appears in its name. Therefore, people can just reject it. Likewise peole can just go around pretending gravity doesn't exist, since it's "just" Newton's theory of gravity.
> 
> Contrary to the blatherings of demagogues who profit from misleading the ignorant, calling something a "theory" in the sciences DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING AS USING THE WORD IN COMMON LANGAUGE.



So you must say that there were ailens that helped our ansesters because of the "acnent alien theroy".  I beleive all theorys have some fact and evedince to that fact but the theory is the part that ties those facts together.  I chouse to except the facts that are in all theories but not always the parts a man has thought of to tie them together.


----------



## jvarnell

CuAllaidh said:


> *Bold added by me for emphasis
> 
> There is no "JUST A THEORY" in science. This is the point we are trying to get across here. The theory about lockness is NOT a scientific theory it is a theory in the usage most people are familiar with, in science it would be a hypothesis at best. Everything in science is just a theory. Nothing it proven 100% in science, not ever, its the nature of the beast. While it is true that some theories have more evidence than others, and some have flaws, evolution is one that is pretty well understood. Sure Darwin didn't have it 100% correct, we all know that, however it was a starting point. If you think there has been more disproved than accepted then then you simply don't understand Darwin's complete theories.



If you look at Darwins theory of how he viewed the formation of Locness you will see it makes since but as more facts came to light everyone found the way he  put together the facts he had was right but ithe theory was wrong.  The deferances between glacial and pplate tectonics.


----------



## jvarnell

Theories are not the facts they are the glue that makes the facts make since.


----------



## CuAllaidh

Loch Ness? seriously?


----------



## CuAllaidh

ej6267 said:


> One of my favorite vloggers said that he ran into his music classes when he was 14 and yelled "I don't believe in your music, it's just a theory!" and ran out again, leaving a puzzled looking class.
> 
> 
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App




That's awesome  to hazard a guess.... John Green?


----------



## jvarnell

CuAllaidh said:


> Loch Ness? seriously?



Yes the lake and gow it was formed not anything in it.


----------



## CuAllaidh

Ok and how does the forming of a lake have anything to do with Evolution?


----------



## jvarnell

CuAllaidh said:


> Ok and how does the forming of a lake have anything to do with Evolution?



it doesn't have anthing to do with evolution but it was "a" darwin theory that was disproved and not excepted.  Darwin wrote papers on at least 3 theorys and only one was excepted that is the one on evolution.


----------



## jvarnell

Darwins theory was not really his but based on a paper called "Transmutation of species, Lamarckism, inheritance of acquired characteristics"


----------



## CuAllaidh

I am aware Darwin did research in other areas, this in no way affects the truth of Evolution.

I am also aware that Darwin was not the first person to develop a theory on evolution, nor was Lamarck. The idea had been kicking around for some time, and in fact had been growing in acceptance and understanding leading up to Darwin. Darwin however is considered the father of evolutionary theory because he unified many of the ideas when he came up his own version. Newton also didn't come up with the idea of gravity, doesn't make gravity any less true, Newton also came up with other theories, some of them didn't pan out, doesn't make gravity any less true.


----------



## jvarnell

CuAllaidh said:


> I am aware Darwin did research in other areas, this in no way affects the truth of Evolution.
> 
> I am also aware that Darwin was not the first person to develop a theory on evolution, nor was Lamarck. The idea had been kicking around for some time, and in fact had been growing in acceptance and understanding leading up to Darwin. Darwin however is considered the father of evolutionary theory because he unified many of the ideas when he came up his own version. Newton also didn't come up with the idea of gravity, doesn't make gravity any less true, Newton also came up with other theories, some of them didn't pan out, doesn't make gravity any less true.


 I agree that is why I say it's "just a theory" facts don't change but the way they are explained can and that is the theory part.  Einstein did not change Nuton theory of gravity he added mass to his theory.


----------



## jvarnell

if we don't strach and try to change the theory part with new facts we will do nothing new.  I don't just fall in line and say something is right just because some one that tell me he is smarter than me.  I keep all the theories in my head and if new data comes along I add it to it and then rething all the same theories on the same subject.  If someone comes along and tells you you can only think and beleive the way i do or your stupid do you do it?  Hell no....  There is still to much theory and not enough fact for me to except Darwin's theory of eveloution.  At every branch there is a missing link in human evelution and i need at least one of those links and maybe all.


----------



## CuAllaidh

The missing link is nonsense.... What specifically are you looking for? Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, or perhaps you want to go back to before homo genus, Australopithecus africanus, or maybe Australopithecus anamensis perhaps, or maybe the Paranthropus group.... how far back do you need? Do we know every single step of the way no... but we certainly have enough evidence to suggest Evolution is not a theory in the manner in which you mean, it is fact. Our understanding of it may improve, but Evolution is a fact, that science calls it a Theory is due to the way science works and what the word actually means in a scientific setting.


----------



## jvarnell

CuAllaidh said:


> The missing link is nonsense.... What specifically are you looking for? Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, or perhaps you want to go back to before homo genus, Australopithecus africanus, or maybe Australopithecus anamensis perhaps, or maybe the Paranthropus group.... how far back do you need? Do we know every single step of the way no... but we certainly have enough evidence to suggest Evolution is not a theory in the manner in which you mean, it is fact. Our understanding of it may improve, but Evolution is a fact, that science calls it a Theory is due to the way science works and what the word actually means in a scientific setting.



The missing link is just a spot in the chain that ties our species to the others.  If you look at the DNA evdiance you will see big gaps between modern man and past man.


----------



## CuAllaidh

jvarnell said:


> The missing link is just a spot in the chain that ties our species to the others.  If you look at the DNA evdiance you will see big gaps between modern man and past man.



Sorry but clearly you don't have enough of an understanding of microbiology or anthropology and are relying on what others say about it, the missing link is in your knowledge not in the theory or the evidence.


----------



## jvarnell

CuAllaidh said:


> Sorry but clearly you don't have enough of an understanding of microbiology or anthropology and are relying on what others say about it, the missing link is in your knowledge not in the theory or the evidence.


T
he missinng link is a part of the long chains of life.  It is not an animal.  I could have said a gap in the imaginary line that connects things.  When there is a genetic mutation that is called eveloution only a small part of the DNA changes but not all the DNA changes.  The missing link is the peice of DNA that connects the Simian species to the human speies.   that ia a link of one thing to another that is missing.  it can be called a line or what ever but it is what links speices.  I always look at the information that ties the genus species and subspecies to each other and I see tomany big gaps that need to be LINKed in some manner to say Darwin is fully baked.  (that baked is a metaphor for compleet)


----------



## CuAllaidh

Again I maintain the gap is not in the evidence, but rather in your knowledge of how evolution works. This is not a flaw in the theory of evolution, but rather your understanding of the science. There is no evidence that could be provided to you unless you are willing to actually study the science behind it. Once you do that you will begin to understand that there is no missing link. And I do understand that you think there is missing information in how genetic mutations could form new species, it is a complicated subject, one I am not nearly qualified to explain it to you in easy to understand terms. http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/812.full This is a somewhat decent start at understanding the various ways specification can occur.


----------



## jvarnell

I love it being lectured on how science works.  I also know when people don't understand that they can't force someone else to have the same opion as they, they will start telling how wrong they are without thinking of what the other person may know that they don't.  I have a lot more knowlage on many subject than you will ever know.

No one has all the information and can prove there are no gaps in the chain's of life.


----------



## ej6267

CuAllaidh said:


> That's awesome  to hazard a guess.... John Green?



Aronra on YouTube he probably wouldn't be popular on this forum 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## CuAllaidh

jvarnell said:


> I love it being lectured on how science works.  I also know when people don't understand that they can't force someone else to have the same opion as they, they will start telling how wrong they are without thinking of what the other person may know that they don't.  I have a lot more knowlage on many subject than you will ever know.
> 
> No one has all the information and can prove there are no gaps in the chain's of life.



Yes you are getting a bit of a lecture on science, because you don't understand the basics, you clearly have done some reading, but you also clearly do not have the basic background to actually understand it. I am not claiming I have all the information, and I have no doubt you know a lot that I don't on a whole ton of subjects. However you have made it abundantly clear that on this subject you are not knowledgeable. You claim no one can prove there are no gaps in the chain of life, yet you clearly have no formal science background. That seems a little arrogant to me, I would certainly not ever claim that no one could prove there are no gaps in string theory, because I don't have enough knowledge of that faucet of physics. As for your opinion, you are free to have your own opinion, no one is forcing you not to, however when you make claims about things that simply are not true (such as what constitutes a theory in science) expect to be corrected.


----------



## jjjjjggggg

If you stopped at Darwin, then of course I could see why you would have reservations, but the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution from the last 100 years. They see it consistently proven in the laboratories every day. It seems the only folks who have an issue with it is religious fundamentalists who believe the truth of evolution completely undermines their faith. 

It's absurd that the discussion even continues. But I still see people defending that the earth is flat, or that the earth is only 6,000 years old, or that Noah hung out with dinosaurs. It's ridiculous. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jvarnell

CuAllaidh said:


> Yes you are getting a bit of a lecture on science, because you don't understand the basics, you clearly have done some reading, but you also clearly do not have the basic background to actually understand it. I am not claiming I have all the information, and I have no doubt you know a lot that I don't on a whole ton of subjects. However you have made it abundantly clear that on this subject you are not knowledgeable. You claim no one can prove there are no gaps in the chain of life, yet you clearly have no formal science background. That seems a little arrogant to me, I would certainly not ever claim that no one could prove there are no gaps in string theory, because I don't have enough knowledge of that faucet of physics. As for your opinion, you are free to have your own opinion, no one is forcing you not to, however when you make claims about things that simply are not true (such as what constitutes a theory in science) expect to be corrected.


I understand a lot more than you know and also  would say that all data about a subject should always be questioned.  When you quit questioning data you have lost your path to new discovery.   All discovery is started by questioning theroies others have had.  Science is a building process that begins with a question.  Untill all questions are answered (on gaps) a theory is not fact.  There has to be some truth in it for theory to form but saying something is " simply are not true" is odd to me, you or I can't know the truth we can only come up with a theory of what the truth is.


----------



## jvarnell

After thinking about this all night I decided to say one thing why I am so adamit about theories.   It is because I am in the middle of a project to model one small part of human behavior using a SOM self organizing.map modifyed by a swarm programing algorithm.  A theory limit data used in it because of the massive amount of data.  It is one persons idea on how to limit  that data.  I am using a hadoop data base stopped that limitation in this data base so the is all there for the outcome to change as perseptions do.  I know my spelling turn off so many of you but as person the has ssavant tendencies spelling is just little crap I don't  care about.   I say look at the data and use what you want but always keep an eye on all the other data that lurks close by.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

jvarnell said:


> I love it being lectured on how science works.  I also know when people don't understand that they can't force someone else to have the same opion as they, they will start telling how wrong they are without thinking of what the other person may know that they don't.  I have a lot more knowlage on many subject than you will ever know.



Perhaps, but you must admit that your steadfast refusal to demonstrate any of that knowledge is... confusing.


----------



## jjjjjggggg

Watched a great video with Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson. He was chastising atheists for their insistence on their a-holery toward "believers". Dr. Tyson pointed out that 7% of elite scientists are believers and before working over the general public about belief that they might try and figure that one out.  His point being, I think, is that even among those that have deep understanding of the scientific method are a few who still cling to irrational thought. 

Being educated doesn't guarantee against ignorance or irrationality. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jvarnell

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Perhaps, but you must admit that your steadfast refusal to demonstrate any of that knowledge is... confusing.



No I am watching everyone normal human behaiveur.  When someone reads what you have said and it makes them ether get you to admint they are right or discredit everything you have said.  In school that is bulling.  In my mind thinking about the project I am woriking on I am waying the risk of wheather or not to put that in to the aalgorithm.  I also know I am not picking any theory out as being right when most use the same data.  Darwins theory is one of many.  Why is it the one people fight for the most.  They are all theories that use the same data they just don't have the same conclustion being drawn.  

The way I see it right now is that the ain't religus crowed is trying to hold down the religus crowd un till the yell uncle.  The question was "do you beleive in Darwins evolution" Not that we should have to and if you say know you are ether stupid or don't understand science which both are from the truth.

More data for you flat earth Darwin only's out there do web searches of per-darwin and post-darwin evolution you will see a whole welth of data you will not have seen by saying the question is too darwin or not.  A binary adatude is not very helpful because it is what is in us personaly and not what the colutive thinks.


----------



## ej6267

jvarnell said:


> After thinking about this all night I decided to say one thing why I am so adamit about theories.   It is because I am in the middle of a project to model one small part of human behavior using a SOM self organizing.map modifyed by a swarm programing algorithm.  A theory limit data used in it because of the massive amount of data.  It is one persons idea on how to limit  that data.  I am using a hadoop data base stopped that limitation in this data base so the is all there for the outcome to change as perseptions do.  I know my spelling turn off so many of you but as person the has ssavant tendencies spelling is just little crap I don't  care about.   I say look at the data and use what you want but always keep an eye on all the other data that lurks close by.



Please help me here, I really am trying to understand. Is your objection simply to using the word theory because you disagree with it's definition, or are you seeing a problem with the evolutionary model itself, and if this is your actual objection, what specifically is it other than "it is incomplete"?


----------



## jvarnell

ej6267 said:


> Please help me here, I really am trying to understand. Is your objection simply to using the word theory because you disagree with it's definition, or are you seeing a problem with the evolutionary model itself, and if this is your actual objection, what specifically is it other than "it is incomplete"?



No people fight for what they think is right using only a little data in stead of looking at all of it.  Most Darwinest think that this is only a two part answer.  Darwin's theory is one of many hince "just a theory" and if you don't think it is completly right the pro-darwin forces attack you first a you don't know anything about science and then you are stupid.  I don't bend to pressure and ther are more theorys our there about evolution than you can shake a stick at. Most Darwinest use his theory to say there is no God and that is what make me wonder about all of these Masons here.  Darwinisam is one of the tools used by the comunist to get rid of God so government will be the God and it will fit Carl Marx ideas.  When I am writing things to be read I can't get my thoughts on paper fast enought to keep them complete.  There may be gaps in my writing but that is because I thought what to say a long time before I could type it like milliseconds.

The project I am working on that I talked about I wish I could give you details on and you would see how it fits.  But I can't if I am going to make money with it.


----------



## ej6267

Still not sure where you are headed with this.  You are saying that the data is in, but that there are multiple theories we could come to? If so, what are the other theories that haven't already been discredited by updated data? (Lamarckian evolution, etc.)


----------



## jvarnell

ej6267 said:


> Still not sure where you are headed with this.  You are saying that the data is in, but that there are multiple theories we could come to? If so, what are the other theories that haven't already been discredited by updated data? (Lamarckian evolution, etc.)



There is always new data comming in.  Really do a google or Dogpile search of pst-darwin theorys.  Look at what was happening at the time his theory was excepted and by who.  There are a lot of theories about everything and why does this one get so much push and talk?  Why if you don't except it you don't know about science why why why.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

jvarnell said:


> The way I see it right now is that the ain't religus crowed is trying to hold down the religus crowd un till the yell uncle.



We hear it all the time from the right and it upon examination, it is, almost always, simply not true. So, before we go any further, I am going to assist that you support this assertion.


----------



## ej6267

jvarnell said:


> There is always new data comming in.  Really do a google or Dogpile search of pst-darwin theorys.  Look at what was happening at the time his theory was excepted and by who.  There are a lot of theories about everything and why does this one get so much push and talk?  Why if you don't except it you don't know about science why why why.



Okay, I've googled Post Darwinism and I've gotten a lot of scientists that support evolution. Still not seeing any other models that seriously compete. Was there a particular one or ones to which you're trying to draw our attention?


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dfreybur

CuAllaidh said:


> Ok and how does the forming of a lake have anything to do with Evolution?



Darwin was a top notch geologist in his day.  If geology were his strongest field few modern geologists would remember him and almost none outside of science would remember him.

Newton was a top notch alchemist in his day.  He lived in a time when chemistry had not yet emerged from natural philosophy to become a science.  If alchemy were his strongest field few modern chemists would remember him and almost none outside of science would remember him.

People are best known for their strongest contributions.  Some think "X was a well respected professor at a local university" actually says something bad about a person.


----------



## jjjjjggggg

The evolution debate is so 1990's... We should discuss the bigger debate... Loop quantum gravity vs. string theory. ;-)

Bonus points if you know where this is from.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jvarnell

jamie.guinn said:


> The evolution debate is so 1990's... We should discuss the bigger debate... Loop quantum gravity vs. string theory. ;-)
> 
> Bonus points if you know where this is from.
> 
> 
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App



Big Bang theory.....Sheldon


----------



## jvarnell

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> We hear it all the time from the right and it upon examination, it is, almost always, simply not true. So, before we go any further, I am going to assist that you support this assertion.



Every time one of these post say to me "you don't know anything about science" and then beat me with words about what they say I don't know instead of listning to what I am saying they are telling me what I am saying.


----------



## jjjjjggggg

Bazinga!


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## ej6267

jamie.guinn said:


> Saw this article in my Facebook feed, thought it relevant to the discussion: http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/10-myths-misconceptions-and-mischaracterizations-of-evolution/
> 
> 
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


A very succinct well written article.  Thanks for sharing, Brother!


----------



## jvarnell

jamie.guinn said:


> Bazinga!
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


Do you ever find your self being at a freind place watching BBT and laughing when mo one else is and then having to explain what they just said.


----------



## jvarnell

ej6267 said:


> A very succinct well written article.  Thanks for sharing, Brother!



Yes and did you see the word Darwin any where in it?  The answer is No.  hince the Subject of this thread.  I don't say things don't evolve. I just reject how Darwin and his buddies used of it for polictics.


----------



## Aeelorty

> Yes and did you see the word Darwin any where in it? The answer is No. hince the Subject of this thread. I don't say things don't evolve. I just reject how Darwin and his buddies used of it for polictics.



Darwin did not support social darwinism, which is what I assume you are talking about. In fact the term "survival of the fittest" coined by Herbert Spencer is a bit of a misnomer, fitness had nothing to do with beings the physical strongest, it was to do with who produces offspring that then reporduce themselves.


----------



## jjjjjggggg

jvarnell said:


> Do you ever find your self being at a freind place watching BBT and laughing when mo one else is and then having to explain what they just said.



Usually it's me laughing and my wife calling me a big nerd.


----------



## ej6267

jvarnell said:


> Yes and did you see the word Darwin any where in it?  The answer is No.  hince the Subject of this thread.  I don't say things don't evolve. I just reject how Darwin and his buddies used of it for polictics.



Actually, Darwin's name was in points 7 and 9, and I still am not sure if you are objecting to evolution. Or are you objecting to Darwin as a person, or what exactly is the point of contention?


----------



## jvarnell

ej6267 said:


> Actually, Darwin's name was in points 7 and 9, and I still am not sure if you are objecting to evolution. Or are you objecting to Darwin as a person, or what exactly is the point of contention?


Did i miss them?  Oh I see now I guess I missed them because natural slection was not really Darwin and 9 just did not hit me as important.  

My point is "I just reject how Darwin and his buddies used of it for polictics".  (it is Evolution)


----------



## jvarnell

How did you change your name to ej6267?


----------



## ej6267

jvarnell said:


> How did you change your name to ej6267?



That's been my handle all along.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dfreybur

CuAllaidh said:


> Yes you are getting a bit of a lecture on science, because you don't understand the basics, you clearly have done some reading, but you also clearly do not have the basic background to actually understand it.



I started my career at JPL/NASA and not all of the space scientists there understood what science actually is.  They were very good at their part of it, but knowing a part does not equal knowing the whole.  As much I am never surprised when anyone misses some f the principles of science, full time scientist through high school dropout.



jamie.guinn said:


> Watched a great video with Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson. He was chastising atheists for their insistence on their a-holery toward "believers".



By your fruit shall ye be known.  The milder majority among the agnostics and atheists have every bit as much need to reign in their extremists as we of faith have to reign in our extremists.



> Dr. Tyson pointed out that 7% of elite scientists are believers and before working over the general public about belief that they might try and figure that one out. His point being, I think, is that even among those that have deep understanding of the scientific method are a few who still cling to irrational thought.



I have written on why it is not irrational to believe in the existance of deity.  That's it's own entire long, boring and complex thread.



jvarnell said:


> Darwins theory is one of many. Why is it the one people fight for the most. They are all theories that use the same data they just don't have the same conclustion being drawn.



The atomic theory of chemistry (inroganic chemistry) and the modern dogma of molecular biology (also known as Darwian evolution) have similar amounts of supporting evidence.  We don't find fundies ranting against inorganic chemistry but we do find them opposing evolution.



> The way I see it right now is that the ain't religus crowed is trying to hold down the religus crowd un till the yell uncle.



I suggest you have the arrow of effect and cause pointing in the wrong direction.  Science is a process that works with evidence via mathematics and experimentation.  There is no scientific process to object to anything religion teaches.  The opposition comes exclusively from the direction of some religions.  Which ones and why bring us to discussion of sectarian religion that belongs elsewhere, but the direction of the battle as to who is attacker and who is attacked is clear.  Science is not the attacker and evolution is not a strategy to teach atheism no matter how much certain folks think that.  Science is an evidence based process.



jvarnell said:


> Most Darwinest use his theory to say there is no God and that is what make me wonder about all of these Masons here.



Being among Masons you are among men of faith.  Clearly we are not among those who say that the successful predictions of the theory should be used to deny theism.  As such I don't get your point.  You conflate two disjoint sets of people then question upon your mistaken conflation.



> Darwinisam is one of the tools used by the ...



And here you mix politics into the discussion.  Yes, there exist political movements that do as you wrote.  Sure enough their are aomng the ones that ban Masonry.  Again it seems that you conflate two disjoint sets then question upon your mistake conflation.



jvarnell said:


> Big Bang theory.....Sheldon



I believe Sheldon was in turn quoting "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086856/?ref_=nv_sr_1



jvarnell said:


> Do you ever find your self being at a freind place watching BBT and laughing when mo one else is and then having to explain what they just said.



I lived for many years in the neighborhood depicted on Big Bang Theory.  I even get the inside jokes about local stores.  I started college at Caltech.  Those guys are so much like so many of my friends in the dorms its hysterical to me.  I hardly get why folks who went to college elsewhere like the show, but the fact that the Penny character is popular says that I'm missing plenty of other  humor



jamie.guinn said:


> Usually it's me laughing and my wife calling me a big nerd.



Another favorite movie of mine is "Real Genius" and for the same reason.  The guy who lived in the tunnels is based on a specific person who was assigned as my mentor for the first two weeks in the dorms.  Unlike Big Bang, the characters in Real Genius were age appropriate.


----------



## jjjjjggggg

> I have written on why it is not irrational to believe in the existance of deity. That's it's own entire long, boring and complex thread.



Point me to the thread... would love to read it.l


----------



## brother josh

Wait one second I thought there was a TRex on the ark just sayin lol 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dfreybur

jamie.guinn said:


> Point me to the thread... would love to read it.l



I presented a discourse on the topic at a Table Lodge for Lombard 1098 GLofIL several years ago.  I don't recall posting it here.  Maybe I'll check to see if I have a digital copy to paste as a new thread based on your request.

By separate thread I meant the discussion of whether believing in the existence of deity is rational would be a topic for a different thread not this one.  It would go on the philosophy sub-forum I think.  In this thread all that I think is needed is contradicting a statement that believing in the existence of deity is always irrational.  The scientific problem is lack of instrumental detection, but there is far more to rationality than current scientific instrumentation.


----------



## jjjjjggggg

Looking back I worded that wrong. My intent was not to say a god belief is necessarily irrational from a personal point of view, but that atheists default to a god belief as irrational. 

This use to be a topic I kept up with, as I have read both camps' best writers. Though I do believe in deity, it seemed the atheists came out ahead, theists had seemed to get lazy... but definitely a topic for another thread.

And I would love to read your work... I'm kind of nerdy when it comes to this subject and love reading new angles on the debate.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dfreybur

jamie.guinn said:


> ... but that atheists default to a god belief as irrational.



Standard difference between agnostic and atheist or "soft atheist" and "hard atheist" whichever term you prefer.  There are many weaknesses to the hard approach, calling belief in the divine irrational is only one of those weaknesses.


----------



## CuAllaidh

jvarnell said:


> No people fight for what they think is right using only a little data in stead of looking at all of it.  Most Darwinest think that this is only a two part answer.  Darwin's theory is one of many hince "just a theory" and if you don't think it is completly right the pro-darwin forces attack you first a you don't know anything about science and then you are stupid.  I don't bend to pressure and ther are more theorys our there about evolution than you can shake a stick at. Most Darwinest use his theory to say there is no God and that is what make me wonder about all of these Masons here.  Darwinisam is one of the tools used by the comunist to get rid of God so government will be the God and it will fit Carl Marx ideas.  When I am writing things to be read I can't get my thoughts on paper fast enought to keep them complete.  There may be gaps in my writing but that is because I thought what to say a long time before I could type it like milliseconds.
> 
> The project I am working on that I talked about I wish I could give you details on and you would see how it fits.  But I can't if I am going to make money with it.



So you have a problem.... not with Darwin's theory, or the scientific meaning of theory... but that you think Darwin was just trying to prove god doesn't exist and he was doing this because he was a communist? Is that what this boils down to? You do realize that Darwin himself maintained that  "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist" and that he maintained that he was not an atheist but rather an agnostic. Linking Darwinism to Communism is just ridiculous, one has nothing to do with the other.


----------



## BryanMaloney

jamie.guinn said:


> Looking back I worded that wrong. My intent was not to say a god belief is necessarily irrational from a personal point of view, but that atheists default to a god belief as irrational.



As an Orthodox Christian, I'm no atheist, but I do at times think that belief in God is and must be irrational.

I have no problem with this. "Rational" merely means "fits into our collective model of how things are supposed to work". It doesn't mean "true". It doesn't mean "correct". It doesn't even mean "fully thought out". It just means "fits into what most people agree is 'rational'". Are we not called to be "fools for Christ"? Let me boast, then, of my foolishness. I am a scientist who gets quite irritable at misrepresentation of science and dismissing theories on the grounds they are called "theories". I simultaneously am quite convinced that God exists. He cares about little piece of nothing me (and you, and the guy who won't believe in Him). That He came down (the Divine Logos, the Son) from a state so transcendent that we can only metaphorize it as a sort of "up place" and took on humanity while remaining fully Divine. etc. How irrational is that? How could one be more irrational to than to be all that I am. I glory in this irrationality. I glory in being such a fool.


----------



## BroBook

Good stuff!!!


Bro Book


----------



## coachn

http://blog.ted.com/2013/07/11/myth...olution-a-ted-ed-lesson-about-the-subtleties/
:47::34:
<snicker>


----------



## brother josh

I believe we as a whole man and earth combined are governed by divine providence and that Gods face is seen threw natures laws 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter

I believe in God (just not the anthropomorphic white dude with a beard who creates things in 7 days as a literal story), and I believe science has uncovered strong evidence of natural selection and evolution.  I have no reason to believe the two don't leave in harmony.  I recommend Gould's "Rocks of Ages" as a read you might all enjoy.


----------



## jwhoff

Frater Cliff Porter said:


> I believe in God (just not the anthropomorphic white dude with a beard who creates things in 7 days as a literal story), and I believe science has uncovered strong evidence of natural selection and evolution.  I have no reason to believe the two don't leave in harmony.  I recommend Gould's "Rocks of Ages" as a read you might all enjoy.



I must agree Brother Porter.  Even as a student in high school and college, I just never got the argument of science verses creation.  To me they both followed the natural order of things set in place by the maker.  And, through the years, I have discussed this subject with professors and religious leaders such as Jesuit Priests, Jewish Rabbis and Protestant Pastors.  Not one of which was willing to discount either science or creation.  Most felt their arguments to be in harmony as you say.  

Yes, I am aware of those from religion and science who do discredit the other.  But these are not the kind of people who are drawn to converse with me.  Nor I with them.

And, yes, literal interpretations of just about anything in life leads to dogmatic confrontations.  

Finely, thank you very much for the tip on Gould's "Rock of Ages."  I will go straight to Amazon to find a copy.

May the GAOTU bless and keep you Brother.  Keep up the good work!  Masons everywhere owe you a great debt for the light you continue to bring to this great fraternity.  :thumbup1:


----------



## dfreybur

dfreybur said:


> I presented a discourse on the topic at a Table Lodge for Lombard 1098 GLofIL several years ago.  I don't recall posting it here.  Maybe I'll check to see if I have a digital copy to paste as a new thread based on your request.



So far I have only found a version that I edited to make heavily sectarian.  Not appropriate in a Masonic context.  No luck so far finding the non-sectarian version I presented at a Table Lodge.

The outline goes like this -

Philosophy starts with direct personal observation and builds from there.  The current form of modern science depends on instrumental detection, though that's not necessary to conduct science in all cases.  Thus philosophy deals with a wider range of the rational than does science and science deals with a wider range of phenomena than the instrumentalists normally discuss.

Subjective experiences are internal ones that are not shared from individual to individual.  Objective experiences are external ones that are agreed upon between individuals.  On the surface all direct personal observation of deity appears to be subjective as there has never been any instrumental detection.  The issue of subjective versus objective is floating point not digital, though.  Objective experiences do fall into classes that have been organized into many different workable systems.

Across the ages a minority of humanity has reported direct personal  observation of deity.  No instrument has ever detected deity.  This is  the core issue at the heart of the discussion of existence of deity -  How can it be rational to have an experience that are subjective not objective?

List various historical transitions from subjective to objective has knowledge has advanced.  Include some that everyone could see but no one could understand until the advent of science (fire is visible but understanding plasma is very recent).  Include some that have a different type of existence than the physical (mathematics).  Touch on the sweep of psychology as it progressed across modern history.  Discuss the idea that subjective experiences do form groups (patterns of experiences in church or by saints or the pattern of legends in various religions).

Ask the closing question about direct personal observation - Are you willing to call in error or insane all of those billions across the millennia who have reported direct personal observation of deity?  I am not willing to make that claim.  That is the claim of numerous atheists.

Conclude with a willingness to be in error.  What if I'm wrong that deity exists?  The upside to belief is large while the downside to disbelief is small on a personal scale.  Acknowledge that the history of civilizations has a much larger downside.  If I'm wrong I'm in good company.

Please note that this line of argument that belief in the existence of deity has little or nothing to do with which religion a believer ends up in.  It doesn't address that topic at all.  Those who have direct personal observation of deity often use those experiences to chose but that's beyond the scope of this line of argument.  It also says nothing about evolution.  Belief or disbelief in evolution is not correlated with belief or disbelief in the existence of deity - If you disbelieve in evolution because or your religion that's a completely different issue than believing in the existence of deity.


----------



## jvarnell

CuAllaidh said:


> So you have a problem.... not with Darwin's theory, or the scientific meaning of theory... but that you think Darwin was just trying to prove god doesn't exist and he was doing this because he was a communist? Is that what this boils down to? You do realize that Darwin himself maintained that  "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist" and that he maintained that he was not an atheist but rather an agnostic. Linking Darwinism to Communism is just ridiculous, one has nothing to do with the other.


 No that a everyone should know that theory is not fact it has fact in it but it is not end all be all fact.  It is a way for someone to explain the data that is missing and the parts that are not fact.  Anyone that seaks to distory religion so the governemt becomes a replacement for it is comunistic.  Governments that strive to elemanate religion are comunistic!  Some day you need to read the comunist manafesto and see what Marx said about the enviroment.  I will not quote it because you won't beleive it.


----------



## BryanMaloney

The germ theory of disease. Just a theory, therefore, bacteria NEVER cause disease.
The theory of gravity. Just a theory, therefore, gravity doesn't exist.

The plain truth is that someone who makes a big deal over whether or not a scientific model is called a "theory" or not simply is showing off complete lack of understanding of how the term "theory" is used as a professional term of art--REGARDLESS of how popular language has deviated from that use.


----------



## jjjjjggggg

Thank you dfreybur... I get the gist of what you explained, and one of the more reasonable arguments I've read.

I'm no atheist, obviously, but the arguments from the theistic side that I've read (and I've read a ton of books on both sides) have had such a serious amount of logical errors that I was quite embarrassed. 

Even a person I highly respect, who is also a mason, had wrote a recent book on the argument for god... but I didn't have the heart to tell him his arguments weren't well researched or convincing. I've seen better articles written on Wikipedia.

But thank you, so far the best I've seen yet.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> The germ theory of disease. Just a theory, therefore, bacteria NEVER cause disease.
> The theory of gravity. Just a theory, therefore, gravity doesn't exist.
> 
> The plain truth is that someone who makes a big deal over whether or not a scientific model is called a "theory" or not simply is showing off complete lack of understanding of how the term "theory" is used as a professional term of art--REGARDLESS of how popular language has deviated from that use.



One more time what ever you say is right I don't understand or know anything.  The theory of gravity of Nuton has been updated 2 twice to add more information by Einestin and Hawkins so that is why it is just a theory and not a conclution.  It is more information.  That is why some of the Darwinist are stoping some of the new archology from South America where there are branches without the tree.  This may not have anything in it but it also may be good info.  There are serveal colleges on the east cost that will not except any research that doesn't suport Darwin only.  It may also just be because of Pangea but we will not know that if research is not alowed and Archiologist and not discreted just because they don't want to detract or add to Darwin.


----------



## CuAllaidh

jvarnell said:


> No that a everyone should know that theory is not fact it has fact in it but it is not end all be all fact.  It is a way for someone to explain the data that is missing and the parts that are not fact.  Anyone that seaks to distory religion so the governemt becomes a replacement for it is comunistic.  Governments that strive to elemanate religion are comunistic!  Some day you need to read the comunist manafesto and see what Marx said about the enviroment.  I will not quote it because you won't beleive it.



I have read Communist Manafesto many times, nothing you could quote from it would shock me. I can't recall any discussion about any governments trying to eliminate religion, not sure why you are bringing that up, very irrelevant to this discussion. 



> One more time what ever you say is right I don't understand or know anything. The theory of gravity of Nuton has been updated 2 twice to add more information by Einestin and Hawkins so that is why it is just a theory and not a conclution. It is more information. That is why some of the Darwinist are stoping some of the new archology from South America where there are branches without the tree. This may not have anything in it but it also may be good info. There are serveal colleges on the east cost that will not except any research that doesn't suport Darwin only. It may also just be because of Pangea but we will not know that if research is not alowed and Archiologist and not discreted just because they don't want to detract or add to Darwin.




Newton's theory of gravity has been expanded upon, that doesn't make his theory's wrong. Darwinists are trying to stop some archaeology... sorry but cite a reference on that one, I don't buy it.


----------



## dfreybur

jamie.guinn said:


> Thank you dfreybur... I get the gist of what you explained, and one of the more reasonable arguments I've read.
> 
> I'm no atheist, obviously, but the arguments from the theistic side that I've read (and I've read a ton of books on both sides) have had such a serious amount of logical errors that I was quite embarrassed.



I noticed the errors of logic in both the theist and atheist arguments so I decided to rethink and reframe the issue.  To me the discussion of the existence of deity isn't related to other topics involved so I addressed it separately - It all starts with direct personal observation and that's something that does happen.   You'll notice my argument does not address the nature of deity as that's not something that sees agreement.

Arguments about creation seem weak to me.  Having a creator implies a creator of creators and so on back in an infinite sequence.  This problem tends to be addressed with a "first principle" or "first creator" but there is no such beginning to any infinite sequence.  In fact the best argument for creation comes from the evidence of science having to do with the Big Bang and that evidence is *extremely* new only being known since the 1920s (Hubble returned to astronomy after serving in WWI).  Thing is, we don't need creation to have deity.  Hindu has no creation and it has deity/deities.  Buddhism has neither depending on which of their sacred writings you chose among.

Arguments about order in nature also seem weak to me.  If a being dictates order that suggests chaos predates order but it also suggests that being emerged spontaneously from chaos.  This does not resemble the divine as usually conceived.  In the end the issue of order has the same problems as the issue of creation, and the same type of physical evidence.  Science observes all sorts of self organizing systems in the universe and science explains many of them.  As with the Big Bang science still has gaps and uncertainties and comes with no guarantees those gaps will ever be filled.  Evolution is one example of self organizing systems.

Bro Bryan asserted that believing in the existence of deity should be an irrational act, an act of faith.  I suggest an alternative to that stance -

It is rational to believe in the existence of deity because direct personal observation happens.  It is rational to believe the universe came into existence because the astronomical evidence suggests that.  It is rational to accept that there is order in the universe because self organizing systems as widely observed.

Merging these stances, that's where the faith comes in.  Where brother Bryan calls this irrational I suggest it is a-rational.  An irrational stance goes against reason.  Merging these stances does not go against reason.  An a-rational stance is independent of reason.  Merging these stances is, to me and at this point, independent of reason.


----------



## CuAllaidh

dfreybur said:


> I noticed the errors of logic in both the theist and atheist arguments so I decided to rethink and reframe the issue.  To me the discussion of the existence of deity isn't related to other topics involved so I addressed it separately - It all starts with direct personal observation and that's something that does happen.   You'll notice my argument does not address the nature of deity as that's not something that sees agreement.
> 
> Arguments about creation seem weak to me.  Having a creator implies a creator of creators and so on back in an infinite sequence.  This problem tends to be addressed with a "first principle" or "first creator" but there is no such beginning to any infinite sequence.  In fact the best argument for creation comes from the evidence of science having to do with the Big Bang and that evidence is *extremely* new only being known since the 1920s (Hubble returned to astronomy after serving in WWI).  Thing is, we don't need creation to have deity.  Hindu has no creation and it has deity/deities.  Buddhism has neither depending on which of their sacred writings you chose among.
> 
> Arguments about order in nature also seem weak to me.  If a being dictates order that suggests chaos predates order but it also suggests that being emerged spontaneously from chaos.  This does not resemble the divine as usually conceived.  In the end the issue of order has the same problems as the issue of creation, and the same type of physical evidence.  Science observes all sorts of self organizing systems in the universe and science explains many of them.  As with the Big Bang science still has gaps and uncertainties and comes with no guarantees those gaps will ever be filled.  Evolution is one example of self organizing systems.
> 
> Bro Bryan asserted that believing in the existence of deity should be an irrational act, an act of faith.  I suggest an alternative to that stance -
> 
> It is rational to believe in the existence of deity because direct personal observation happens.  It is rational to believe the universe came into existence because the astronomical evidence suggests that.  It is rational to accept that there is order in the universe because self organizing systems as widely observed.
> 
> Merging these stances, that's where the faith comes in.  Where brother Bryan calls this irrational I suggest it is a-rational.  An irrational stance goes against reason.  Merging these stances does not go against reason.  An a-rational stance is independent of reason.  Merging these stances is, to me and at this point, independent of reason.



Well said brother


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> One more time what ever you say is right I don't understand or know anything.  The theory of gravity of Nuton has been updated 2 twice to add more information by Einestin and Hawkins so that is why it is just a theory and not a conclution.  It is more information.  That is why some of the Darwinist are stoping some of the new archology from South America where there are branches without the tree.  This may not have anything in it but it also may be good info.  There are serveal colleges on the east cost that will not except any research that doesn't suport Darwin only.  It may also just be because of Pangea but we will not know that if research is not alowed and Archiologist and not discreted just because they don't want to detract or add to Darwin.



NO BIOLOGIST USES DARWIN'S THEORY AS HE PRESENTED IT. NONE. IT HAS BEEN UPDATED SEVERAL TIMES SINCE IT WAS FIRST PUBLISHED. STOP PONTIFICATING ON BIOLOGY UNTIL YOU KNOW SOMETHING AT ALL ABOUT SCIENCE. Also, archaeologists do not do biological research. An archaeologist presuming to pontificate on biology is as ridiculous as a biologist presuming to pontificate on high-energy particle physics. Cite this alleged "research" that you claim is being "blocked". Show me the details. Or are you just blindly passing along rumors?


----------



## BryanMaloney

dfreybur said:


> Bro Bryan asserted that believing in the existence of deity should be an irrational act, an act of faith.


 
I have asserted nothing of the sort. Quote, specifically, wherein I stated that my own approach is how things "should" be done.


----------



## jvarnell

CuAllaidh said:


> I have read Communist Manafesto many times, nothing you could quote from it would shock me. I can't recall any discussion about any governments trying to eliminate religion, not sure why you are bringing that up, very irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> [/COLOR]
> 
> Newton's theory of gravity has been expanded upon, that doesn't make his theory's wrong. Darwinists are trying to stop some archaeology... sorry but cite a reference on that one, I don't buy it.


Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.   thix is one of may lines in the menavesto.


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.   thix is one of may lines in the menavesto.



Now, what does that mean? It's not at all shocking. Marx didn't come out and say "Religious people are stupid.", for example. He said that religion is the "heart of the heartless world". His use of "opium" is better understood when one realizes that the amazing variety of painkillers, both over-the-counter and prescription, we have today, did not exist at that time. He might as well have written "It is the Advil of the people." and had the same meaning. Opium was often taken at that time in order to soothe unhealable pain.


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> Now, what does that mean? It's not at all shocking. Marx didn't come out and say "Religious people are stupid.", for example. He said that religion is the "heart of the heartless world". His use of "opium" is better understood when one realizes that the amazing variety of painkillers, both over-the-counter and prescription, we have today, did not exist at that time. He might as well have written "It is the Advil of the people." and had the same meaning. Opium was often taken at that time in order to soothe unhealable pain.


I was answering the question the the manifesto did talk about religion and he thought that religion should not point to God but government.  A religion of government and people thinking nothing but government could be there savourer in life.  This is why progresives like darwin had to have theroies that pushed God out of the thought of man.


----------



## jjjjjggggg

> This is why progresives like darwin had to have theroies that pushed God out of the thought of man.



Wow... no offense brother but this is utter nonsense! Darwin didn't propose his theories to satisfy Marx... I seriously doubt Darwin even read his manifesto. Your knowledge may be as "exstensive" as you claim but your reasoning is flawed!


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> I was answering the question the the manifesto did talk about religion and he thought that religion should not point to God but government.  A religion of government and people thinking nothing but government could be there savourer in life.  This is why progresives like darwin had to have theroies that pushed God out of the thought of man.



You obviously know nothing at all about Darwin as a human being. He was not a "progressive". He was an English naturalist who had little to no interest at all in politics. He had no care one way or the other of "pushing" or not "pushing" God anywhere. If anything, he was a typical muddled, middle-of-the-road Anglican. He did not have the agenda touted by so many paranoid delusionals. Darwin and Marx did not sit together over tea and conspire to bring about the death of humanity. Marx did not at any time declare that religion should point to government. He simply wished to do away with it because it was his conclusion that religion had become nothing but an arm and enabler of government. It was a way for governments to manipulate and distract people, thus to control them. That was Marx's point. Marx's point was that government officials would use or co-opt religion to "wave the cross around" in order to pretend to great morality, thus authorizing themselves to do everyone else's thinking for them.

Marx's solution was to conclude that, since religion could be abused in such a fashion, it had to be done away with and since it could be so abused, it meant there could be no God, since a real God would protect religion, or at least the correct one. Marx was in error on these two points (among many others), but anyone who claims that Marx intended to use religion to worship the state is either lying or been badly lied to. If anything, Marx wanted to eliminate religion and ceremony altogether as being too dangerous for the people--that would include government-worship ceremonies. What was done with his (flawed) analysis is one reason that he eventually stated, "If this is Marxism, I am not a Marxist".

Funny thing--the last time I saw anything that looked A GREAT DEAL like worship of government, it was at a Baptist church, on a Sunday that was near the 4th of July.


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> You obviously know nothing at all about Darwin as a human being. He was not a "progressive". He was an English naturalist who had little to no interest at all in politics. He had no care one way or the other of "pushing" or not "pushing" God anywhere. If anything, he was a typical muddled, middle-of-the-road Anglican. He did not have the agenda touted by so many paranoid delusionals. Darwin and Marx did not sit together over tea and conspire to bring about the death of humanity. Marx did not at any time declare that religion should point to government. He simply wished to do away with it because it was his conclusion that religion had become nothing but an arm and enabler of government. It was a way for governments to manipulate and distract people, thus to control them. That was Marx's point. Marx's point was that government officials would use or co-opt religion to "wave the cross around" in order to pretend to great morality, thus authorizing themselves to do everyone else's thinking for them.
> 
> Marx's solution was to conclude that, since religion could be abused in such a fashion, it had to be done away with and since it could be so abused, it meant there could be no God, since a real God would protect religion, or at least the correct one. Marx was in error on these two points (among many others), but anyone who c...laims that Marx intended to use religion to worship the state is either lying or been badly lied to. If anything, Marx wanted to eliminate religion and ceremony altogether as being too dangerous for the people--that would include government-worship ceremonies. What was done with his (flawed) analysis is one reason that he eventually stated, "If this is Marxism, I am not a Marxist".
> 
> Funny thing--the last time I saw anything that looked A GREAT DEAL like worship of government, it was at a Baptist church, on a Sunday that was near the 4th of July.



To me it is obvious you don't look at all the data and when a duck looks acts and quacks like a duck you don't believe it is one.  Look at those that Darwin hung around and suported his research in later years.  Also when thinking about Marx he did want to elimenate religion but it was because alot of man will always beleive in something biger then them self's and he thought that should be government.  Religin doesn't have to have worship or ceremonies it is only a common beleif in something.  Dogma is where the rituals, ceremonies and worship come in.

It is odd how you know what (I) know and don't know more than (I)......I just use all data...empirical data and writen data...

If you notice everytime I answer I tell you something to look at because you have to figure it out yourself or you will never beleive/know.   ..........  And as a quote form a musical "stand back non-believers or the rain will never fall"


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> And as a quote form a musical "stand back non-believers or the rain will never fall"



That's what some wiccans I knew would pretty much claim when their "magic" always failed to do anything. Since I didn't believe in their "goddess", I was "blocking" it. I concluded that to mean that I was more powerful than their "goddess".

You prefer to sit in darkness on something as simple as the use of the word "theory" in the sciences, even when it is explained to you. You return to the same tired old lie of "It's just a theory." When there is that much love of darkness...


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> You prefer to sit in darkness on something as simple as the use of the word "theory" in the sciences, even when it is explained to you. You return to the same tired old lie of "It's just a theory." When there is that much love of darkness...



I prefer to sit in the light which is knowaloge and openess to look at data and make my own decisions based on that.  Time effects my learning about and making changes in my opinion of Darwins theory of eveloution, I am not stuck at the point when he cameup with his theory.  I am learning and growing from that point.  No theory is infollowable.  So yep "It's just a theory" that will change and may even be proven 50% right.  I say that because I will not ever stop learning and stop testing my ideas about theorys of all type.  It is still just a theory or you would have to say the theory of ancient aliens is right also.  The AA theory may or not be right but I am willing to look at more data all the time and learn from it.  Its a theory!!  It has had peir revew.  Do you beleive in it?  I am always willing to look at new data on Darwins theory but with what I know now it has many holes in it.

I don't understand why everyone can not just state there opinion explan how they came to that opinion without being personaly attacked in such a way I would have to say oh your right I don't know anything.  I have only talked about light and learning.

One more thing "hello darkness my old freind"


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

jvarnell said:


> I don't understand why everyone can not just state there opinion explan how they came to that opinion without being personaly attacked...



Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. No one is entitled to his own facts. You insist on ignoring every patient explanation of what a scientific theory is, and is not. Your opinion does not change the facts about science and the way it works.


----------



## jvarnell

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. No one is entitled to his own facts. You insist on ignoring every patient explanation of what a scientific theory is, and is not. Your opinion does not change the facts about science and the way it works.


The problem is that to many people think a scientific theory is all fact.  It may or not be.  Others review the data used for the theory and see if it fits.  If it fits and is complete we all beleive in the theory.  If it has holes missing in the data some beleive it is right and some don't.  Like I have said before it is just a theory.  The is not fact the data used to comeup with the theory is the fact and anyone can come up with a theory that is deferent and uses the same data/facts.


----------



## Aeelorty

> The is not fact the data used to comeup with the theory is the fact and anyone can come up with a theory that is deferent and uses the same data/facts.


 
That right there is the real issue. Theories and explanations differ in accuracy. Secondly not everyone is qualified to interpret the data and the theories they purpose are of lower quality. Specifically the Ancient Aliens theory is the prime example of using poor data and wild speculation. What "holes" have you found in Evolutionary theory?


----------



## dfreybur

jvarnell said:


> The problem is that to many people think a scientific theory is all fact.



Yet none of those have been in this discussion.  You're using points that don't apply in the context of this discussion and have introduced points not relevant to the discussion.  That's two different types of logical fallacy - Non sequitor and canard.

I get that the topic is one of belief and anyone can believe anything as they wish.  Attempts to apply logical fallacies as support aren't needed for belief and shouldn't work among students of the liberal arts and sciences.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

jvarnell said:


> The problem is that to many people think a scientific theory is all fact.



Perhaps, but that list would not include scientists who, as a group, would never make such a bold assertion. Now that same group will tell you, _has _told you, over and over, that when there is overwhelming reproducible evidence supporting a theory the matter is effectively settled, for only a fool would act as if a thing were not so in the face of that evidence. Notice I did not say that no one should _question _that evidence. Good science demands such pursuit, but only a fool would bet his children's future, for example, on the chance that such a pursuit might, against all odds, turn up something new. Such a bet is not "a difference of opinion". It is the very definition of stupidity.



> and anyone can come up with a theory that is deferent and uses the same data/facts.



No. They can not. Again, you misunderstand the definition of a scientific theory.


----------



## jvarnell

Aeelorty said:


> That right there is the real issue. Theories and explanations differ in accuracy. Secondly not everyone is qualified to interpret the data and the theories they purpose are of lower quality. Specifically the Ancient Aliens theory is the prime example of using poor data and wild speculation. What "holes" have you found in Evolutionary theory?



If anyone tell another they are not qualified to look at data decide for them selfs what theory is right, wrong or needs more data it proves my point that there are those that try to stop or control the converstion needed to prove or disprove things.  This is just what the Dem's in the Senate are doing about global warming.  Did any of them look at the actual data vs the hocky stick graph of Al Gore since 2004?  Have you or any or anyofthe otheres look at data of Darwins theory since he published it?  I am the only one that is qulifyed to say what I know, what I think and  what my aaccomplishments in the sciences.


----------



## jvarnell

dfreybur said:


> Yet none of those have been in this discussion.  You're using points that don't apply in the context of this discussion and have introduced points not relevant to the discussion.  That's two different types of logical fallacy - Non sequitor and canard.
> 
> I get that the topic is one of belief and anyone can believe anything as they wish.  Attempts to apply logical fallacies as support aren't needed for belief and shouldn't work among students of the liberal arts and sciences.



Not really it is how big of a picture you look at the theory of chaos.  How much data do you add to your theory or leave out.  I am working on a predictive algorithm that has to use big data (Hadoop style of storage) and getting deferent answers than when it has been used for the last 10 year with less data for the same peroid and the big data answer are so very close to what actuly happened when the other was off by as much as 20%.  The data that is making a deferance doesn't even look like it is related to the problem.  I am finding this other data I am now using by using a (self orginizing map) SOM.


Think big and you will find more truth .


----------



## jvarnell

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> Perhaps, but that list would not include scientists who, as a group, would never make such a bold assertion. Now that same group will tell you, _has _told you, over and over, that when there is overwhelming reproducible evidence supporting a theory the matter is effectively settled, for only a fool would act as if a thing were not so in the face of that evidence. Notice I did not say that no one should _question _that evidence. Good science demands such pursuit, but only a fool would bet his children's future, for example, on the chance that such a pursuit might, against all odds, turn up something new. Such a bet is not "a difference of opinion". It is the very definition of stupidity.
> [/COLOR]No. They can not. Again, you misunderstand the definition of a scientific theory.



This is so funny that everyone is getting so up in arms trying to convince me that this theory is right.  The one thing we all know is the word "theroy" is attached to it so everyone that writes pro or con about it know that even the other Darwin knows it is not "proof".  Thisis  because the word "proof" is the opposite of "theory".  This is what you should know as a scientist and we may never know if any theory is the truth or not till it is proven.

When someone desen't know they attack and say thing like qulified, stupidity or tell one that they don't know something without being that that person.  This is the same tactic the Dem's use against REP, Pregrsives against the concertives and unions against managment.   I want to tell you think about what I said and how Sir Francis Bacon said about words.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

jvarnell said:


> This is so funny that everyone is getting so up in arms trying to convince me that this theory is right.


No... We are trying to tell you that you are conflating the terms "theory" with "scientific theory" and that you appear to be doing so deliberately, in an attempt to defend an indefensible position. 

I will now also tell you that mixing politics into a discussion that has already wandered pretty far afield is completely inappropriate.


----------



## jvarnell

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> No... We are trying to tell you that you are conflating the terms "theory" with "scientific theory" and that you appear to be doing so deliberately, in an attempt to defend an indefensible position.
> 
> I will now also tell you that mixing politics into a discussion that has already wandered pretty far afield is completely inappropriate.



Remember the research on the algorithm I am in valved in and yes Religion, art, Politics and Science and in volved in how we procive things. Adding the word scientific to the word theory doesen't make the word theory anymore proof it only make it sound like you are trying to convince someone and when some one try to convince me without any more or new data I beleive they may have inturpted the data wrong.  The only indefensible postion is one that ignores data or shouts down oposition. 

And yes I would expect the discource we are having when you put a signature on your stuff for an org that does the same thing.


----------



## jvarnell

I tried to add this line to my last post but it would not let me.

A scientific theory is just a theory that is repeatedly tested but I say why do you repeatly test something?....because it looks like something is wrong.


----------



## ej6267

jvarnell said:


> I tried to add this line to my last post but it would not let me.
> 
> A scientific theory is just a theory that is repeatedly tested but I say why do you repeatly test something?....because it looks like something is wrong.



Forget it, brethren, it's the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. 'Nuff said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunningâ€“Kruger_effect


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jjjjjggggg

> Forget it, brethren, it's the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. 'Nuff said.



But the Dunning-Kruger Effect is just a theory!!!  :30:


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jvarnell

ej6267 said:


> Forget it, brethren, it's the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. 'Nuff said.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


Just checking did you mean I was having the Dunning-Kruger effect?  I don't have all the data in your mind to process this.


----------



## jvarnell

jamie.guinn said:


> But the Dunning-Kruger Effect is just a theory!!!  :30:
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


No it was never put for as a theory but as fact so it did not go through the peir process as a theory.  The Darwin theory of evolution has been tested but using only the data for Darwin's timefreme.  In the last 60 years archaeologist have found evloution data that doesn't fit his theory because it has only one trunk based in Africa.  There are now 3 known scelitons before the data used by Darwin that show other trees that don't point to the same evolution.  I have never said I did not beleive in evolution but just how they start.  If you look at the big picture you will see the probems in the data Darwin used.


----------



## jvarnell

jamie.guinn said:


> But the Dunning-Kruger Effect is just a theory!!!  :30:
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


No it was never setforth as a theory.  If you really look at Darwins theory there is data for other eveloutionary origins.  there are 3 other archaeology sources for the tree other than Africa which is stated in his theory.


----------



## jvarnell

jvarnell said:


> No it was never setforth as a theory.  If you really look at Darwins theory there is data for other eveloutionary origins.  there are 3 other archaeology sources for the tree other than Africa which is stated in his theory.




I was trying to edit post #252 and change for to forth but it looked like #252 did not happen so I was starting over.


----------



## jjjjjggggg

jvarnell said:


> No it was never setforth as a theory.  If you really look at Darwins theory there is data for other eveloutionary origins.  there are 3 other archaeology sources for the tree other than Africa which is stated in his theory.



I wasn't being serious... just making a joke.


----------



## jvarnell

jamie.guinn said:


> I wasn't being serious... just making a joke.


Sorry for the miss understanding


----------



## Zaden

jvarnell said:


> ... The Darwin theory of evolution has been tested but *using only the data for Darwin's timefreme*....


 (emphasis added) 

This statement is flatly and demonstrably false. DNA was not even known in Darwin's day. Yet today we have consistently seen modern genomic research adding further evidence (and clarifying) the theory of evolution. Just one example: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.full
Darwin only caught the tip of the iceberg by noticing and suggesting natural selection. The fact that the theory has been expanded upon doesn't make the theory wrong, nor does it make it just a hypothesis (which is closer in meaning to what you are calling "theory").


----------



## jvarnell

Zaden said:


> (emphasis added)
> 
> This statement is flatly and demonstrably false. DNA was not even known in Darwin's day. Yet today we have consistently seen modern genomic research adding further evidence (and clarifying) the theory of evolution. Just one example: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.full
> Darwin only caught the tip of the iceberg by noticing and suggesting natural selection. The fact that the theory has been expanded upon doesn't make the theory wrong, nor does it make it just a hypothesis (which is closer in meaning to what you are calling "theory").



You are still not looking at the big picture.  There are many theorys of eveloution before and after Darwin.  The question was do you beleive in "Darwins" theroy of eveloution.  I did not say eveloution doesn't exist but that I did not beleive in Darwins theory and others have come back saying because it is a theory it is proven but that is untrue.  The reasion the left wants everyone to think Darwins theory is the only one is it limits any other action except hapenstance.  If more than hapenstance happened it stops the eveloution of ccommunism.


----------



## Zaden

jvarnell said:


> You are still not looking at the big picture.  There are many theorys of eveloution before and after Darwin.  The question was do you beleive in "Darwins" theroy of eveloution.  I did not say eveloution doesn't exist but that I did not beleive in Darwins theory and others have come back saying because it is a theory it is proven but that is untrue.  The reasion the left wants everyone to think Darwins theory is the only one is it limits any other action except hapenstance.  If more than hapenstance happened it stops the eveloution of ccommunism.



It is clear through this thread that every person who has argued with you over "theory" was discussing the currently agreed on (mainstream consensus) Theory of Evolution. The main people who even call it "Darwinian Evolution" are those who dispute macro-evolution as a whole. No one who discussed this with you was saying that the theory hasn't been expanded on, added to and corrected since Darwin wrote Origins. The initial question was poorly phrased, but the resulting discussion topic was clear. Especially all of the clarification and distinction regarding the definition of "Theory" in this context. Darwin's idea was more of a premise, the foundation of the theory that is still regularly supported by ongoing research (not because something "seems wrong" but to better understand everything from migratory patterns to genetic medicine as well as to better understand the "tree of life"). 

And how any political system may or may not misuse a scientific theory has no bearing on whether or not said theory is correct.


----------



## jvarnell

Zaden said:


> It is clear through this thread that every person who has argued with you over "theory" was discussing the currently agreed on (mainstream consensus) Theory of Evolution. The main people who even call it "Darwinian Evolution" are those who dispute macro-evolution as a whole. No one who discussed this with you was saying that the theory hasn't been expanded on, added to and corrected since Darwin wrote Origins. The initial question was poorly phrased, but the resulting discussion topic was clear. Especially all of the clarification and distinction regarding the definition of "Theory" in this context. Darwin's idea was more of a premise, the foundation of the theory that is still regularly supported by ongoing research (not because something "seems wrong" but to better understand everything from migratory patterns to genetic medicine as well as to better understand the "tree of life").
> 
> And how any political system may or may not misuse a scientific theory has no bearing on whether or not said theory is correct.



Am I going to have to give you the jedi wave and say look at the big picture to show you everything is connected and that there is no consensus.  The word mainstream means only what the person saying means.


----------



## widows son

I totally agree that Darwin just saw the tip of the iceberg. New DNA research has propelled our understanding of evolution as well as advancement in other sciences. Bro. Varnell I believe many here will agree that the big picture is not quite visible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you think to have a better understanding than those whose lives are dedicated to the topic at hand? 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jvarnell

widows son said:


> I totally agree that Darwin just saw the tip of the iceberg. New DNA research has propelled our understanding of evolution as well as advancement in other sciences. Bro. Varnell I believe many here will agree that the big picture is not quite visible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you think to have a better understanding than those whose lives are dedicated to the topic at hand?
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App



No that is not it at all.....My answer to the question was no i don't beleive in Darwins theory of eveloution and the statment that went with it was It is just a theory.   The others beleive seam to think they have to convince me that my answer was wrong by saying I know nothing about science first and I am stupid and other things for not saying they are right.   Please read the whole thread before making an alagation like that.  I do know a lot and have done a lot but me saying you need to look at the big picture comes from them wanting to focuse on one part of why Darwin wrote what he did and not on the anti-religus and political conitations of what he wrote. 

And yes this is a Correction....you are wrong about my intentions of what I have said!!!

What I


----------



## jvarnell

Also just because you have spent more time doing something doen't mean you know more about it than any other person.


----------



## Zaden

jvarnell said:


> No that is not it at all.....My answer to the question was no i don't beleive in _*Darwins theory of eveloution *_and the statment that went with it was _*It is just a theory*_.   The others beleive seam to think they have to convince me that my answer was wrong by saying I know nothing about science first and I am stupid and other things for not saying they are right.   Please read the whole thread before making an alagation like that.  I do know a lot and have done a lot but me saying you need to look at the big picture comes from them wanting to focuse on one part of why Darwin wrote what he did and not on the anti-religus and political conitations of what he wrote.
> 
> And yes this is a Correction....you are wrong about my intentions of what I have said!!!
> 
> What I




All in good fun, of course, brother. Believe what you like. This is not the debate you are looking for :biggrin:


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

ej6267 said:


> Forget it, brethren, it's the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. 'Nuff said.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunningâ€“Kruger_effect


I didn't know they had a name for it. Cool.


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> No it was never put for as a theory but as fact so it did not go through the peir process as a theory.  The Darwin theory of evolution has been tested but using only the data for Darwin's timefreme.  In the last 60 years archaeologist have found evloution data that doesn't fit his theory because it has only one trunk based in Africa.  There are now 3 known scelitons before the data used by Darwin that show other trees that don't point to the same evolution.  I have never said I did not beleive in evolution but just how they start.  If you look at the big picture you will see the probems in the data Darwin used.



Please show the evidence that scientists CARE whether or not a theory has to be adjusted? SCIENTISTS ARE NOT MULLAHS AND IMAMS! We are not into promulgating eternal dogmas. We find models that are useful, need adjustment, and can be replaced without a single tear. IT DOES NOT MATTER that the words of Darwin are not 100% perfectly perfectly true. No scientist has ever maintained they were. It is not a religious dogma. ALL scientific models are subject to revision. If one is revised, IT IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR SCIENTISTS, although it might be a big deal dogmatics.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Here's the thing: Does ANYONE AT ALL "believe in Darwinian evolution" as it has now been so rigidly and specifically re-defined? I'd say "No, not a single person on the earth." THAT STILL DOES NOT PROVE CREATIONISM TO BE CORRECT. Does anyone "believe in Newtonian physics" if it is rigidly and specifically redefined as "Physics as described exactly by Sir, Isaac Newton, using his exact words and no sources or revisions"? No--except for those ignorant of physics. Newton's model has been revised and updated. That does not mean that "invisible pink unicorn physics" must be true. What is gained AT ALL by admitting that the original version of any scientific model will end up not standing the test of time and be revised in light of later data? THAT STILL DOES NOT PROVE THAT AN ENTIRELY OPPOSITE MODEL MUST BE TRUE.

There is NOBODY around who is invested in preserving and promulgating this ultra-narrowly defined "Darwinian theory of evolution" as if it were a religious dogma, except in the minds of lunatics who suffer from severe paranoia. Nobody who actually does science CARES that a theory gets revised.


----------



## dfreybur

BryanMaloney said:


> Please show the evidence that scientists CARE whether or not a theory has to be adjusted?



Let's not jump to the conclusion that all scientists are open minded about their own field, either.  Check out Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and read the history of several of the revolutions he reports on.  For the larger scientific revolutions the generation of scientists who were tenured before the discovery was made mostly had to die of old age before the new science became very widely accepted.  Until then the new versions saw gradually building consensus with more and more young scientists subscribing.  Individual scientists do get entrenched in their old way and this is good for science in general as they challenge the new ways to prove their value in many different ways.

Science does not care.  Individual scientists often do care.  Plus individual scientists who switch to a new way after a major discovery are later considered pioneers.  This is yet another feature of how science works that many seem unaware of.



> IT DOES NOT MATTER that the words of Darwin are not 100% perfectly perfectly true.



To anyone who hasn't read his book I urge you to.  It covers more issues more widely and more accurately than most expect.  It's a work of extreme brilliance for its era and to this day it shines by its coverage, completeness and how much of its material remains consistent with the evidence.


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> Here's the thing: Does ANYONE AT ALL "believe in Darwinian evolution" as it has now been so rigidly and specifically re-defined? I'd say "No, not a single person on the earth." THAT STILL DOES NOT PROVE CREATIONISM TO BE CORRECT. Does anyone "believe in Newtonian physics" if it is rigidly and specifically redefined as "Physics as described exactly by Sir, Isaac Newton, using his exact words and no sources or revisions"? No--except for those ignorant of physics. Newton's model has been revised and updated. That does not mean that "invisible pink unicorn physics" must be true. What is gained AT ALL by admitting that the original version of any scientific model will end up not standing the test of time and be revised in light of later data? THAT STILL DOES NOT PROVE THAT AN ENTIRELY OPPOSITE MODEL MUST BE TRUE.
> 
> There is NOBODY around who is invested in preserving and promulgating this ultra-narrowly defined "Darwinian theory of evolution" as if it were a religious dogma, except in the minds of lunatics who suffer from severe paranoia. Nobody who actually does science CARES that a theory gets revised.



I just have said Darwins theory of evolution.  I did not ever say evolution doesn't happen and I am not trying to PROVE creationism because they I beleive they are not mutually exclusive.  When I look a theory I don't try to disprove them I use them to try to prove my theories wrong.  When you say things like stuped or ignorants you are just showing you are not willing to look at all data.  I did not say Newton was wrong I said that "Newton's theory of gravity has been added to by Einstein theory of graved being a frabic.  Theories are to try and fill in data where prof is missing.  All of these thing are said not make someone admit anything but to make everyone allways to THINK.

What I don't understand is why you get so upset and always try to make me beleive the way you do.  Every theory has a part that is fact and other parts that are supposition and I am refuring to both parts here.   You however are jumping to concultions without recognizing that.  I also don't beleive you can speek to which sciencetist CARES that a theory gets revisised.  It is funny how you seem to think someone is somehow deamed a science and that you must be the judge of that.


Please think of what I have said....All of what I have said.....you will then not come off as a self-righteous as you have.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

jvarnell said:


> I just have said Darwins theory of evolution.  I did not ever say evolution doesn't happen and I am not trying to PROVE creationism because they I beleive they are not mutually exclusive.


And there is your mistake - trying to argue that the two are not mutually exclusive. One is a scientific theory and the other is a myth. One invites critical thinking to determine it's veracity and the other requires only belief. They are two very different things and any attempt to weigh one against the other is simply a fool's errand.


----------



## BroBook

Before the beginning , during the middle,& after the end, Wisdom,Strength & Beauty, that's all!!!


Bro Book


----------



## jvarnell

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> And there is your mistake - trying to argue that the two are not mutually exclusive. One is a scientific theory and the other is a myth. One invites critical thinking to determine it's veracity and the other requires only belief. They are two very different things and any attempt to weigh one against the other is simply a fool's errand.



Nothing is mutually exclusive excpet in some peoples minds and any man is a fool if they think they can say that is fact!!!  You can only understand as much as the data at the time of the theory being writen down.  New information is always comming in.  There is more and new that several species of hominids overlaped by thousands of years.  The book of Genises is a discription for when hominds became sentient beings.  I think from what you have said that you think Genises is myth.  I beleive all so called myth has trouth it is based on.


----------



## widows son

Evolution is a fact. It did happen, and still is happening. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jvarnell

widows son said:


> Evolution is a fact. It did happen, and still is happening.
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App



Yes I agree but the question is "Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?"  There ar many evelution theorys. Thats why they are theorys and they are all based on the same anthropological data.  Theorys are really the part of the paper that is not data/proof.  If this is not going to start a firestorm. It is the Myth part of the paper that is not proof/fact used to fill in gaps in the data.

I also hope all of us will let the theroys of evolution be able to evolve themselves and we not become a flat earth group that sticks on Darwins theory only.  The catlic church said the earth was flat and killed to prove this.  Some of y'all are saying Darwins theory of evolution is it and only it.....this makes me say something I would normaly not say but he it goes.............WTF


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

jvarnell said:


> The book of Genises is a discription for when hominds became sentient beings.  I think from what you have said that you think Genises is myth.  I beleive all so called myth has trouth it is based on.



The Book of Genesis is a set of ancient stories that were told mouth-to-ear until someone decided to write them down. Since then, they have been translated and edited many, many times. That much is fact. To argue that the contents of that book are fact is completely absurd as there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that may be used to test their veracity. They may have been made up out of whole cloth. No one can know. That makes them myth, regardless of what one chooses to believe about them.

And no. A reasoned hypothesis is absolutely not the same as myth. Conflating the terms is disingenuous, at best, if not outright foolish.


----------



## jvarnell

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> The Book of Genesis is a set of ancient stories that were told mouth-to-ear until someone decided to write them down. Since then, they have been translated and edited many, many times. That much is fact. To argue that the contents of that book are fact is completely absurd as there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that may be used to test their veracity. They may have been made up out of whole cloth. No one can know. That makes them myth, regardless of what one chooses to believe about them.
> 
> And no. A reasoned hypothesis is absolutely not the same as myth. Conflating the terms is disingenuous, at best, if not outright foolish.



au contraire mon frere, By calling anything like that only Myth you will miss good starting places for your research in to all things.  That is the flat earth mantality to discredit then to discard if you see no value in it.  All things point to useful information/data.  Look at what was said about Troy...It is a mythical city writen down after the fact, but now they have found a city that they think may be it.

People normaly write down this based on an experance like in the movies there ar no movies that don't have a starting point as fact.  All movies have an experance that caused them to be writen even the fiction ones.  It could be a drug induced experance but that is an experance.  So if when looking at a so called myth you need to look for the sparks throughout for where to look for evdince of fact.  The new age flat earthers always try to discredit so they can say the whole story is disproved and they miss some evidence that might help them.  Please keep seeking firther light don't limit your self.


----------



## nfasson

I consider myself a Christian and also believe in Evolution. Does that blow your mind?

My reasoning is, the Bible is what, 1,000+ pages all devoted to God and Man, but spends maybe two pages at best talking about the creation of the universe and everything in it.

That tells me that explaining how things came to be where not a big priority when it was written. Maybe man's relationship with God is more important?

Evolution is an observable and proveable theory that shows how life propagates on this planet. That's it. It doesn't try to disprove God or prove that man is somehow inferior bc he descended from other mammals. The fact that it literally four billion years for us to finally show up seems to be an indicator that we're not exactly run-of-the-mill. And the fact that we are so vastly different from other animals... our thinking, our ability to adapt, our sheer willpower. It's not normal compared to other creatures.

And, I don't understand why Creationists try to cram both Genesis and Evolution together when they really should just say, "God created the heavens and Earth in seven days. Period. End of story." 

Why try to "prove" dinosaurs and man lived at the same time or use some crazy pseudoscience to "prove" the Earth is only 14,000 years old? In the Bible, God created the Earth in seven days. If you are a literal interpreter, you don't add anything to that. Nothing! Why try to compromise?

I will now step off the soapbox...




Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jvarnell

nfasson said:


> I consider myself a Christian and also believe in Evolution. Does that blow your mind?
> 
> My reasoning is, the Bible is what, 1,000+ pages all devoted to God and Man, but spends maybe two pages at best talking about the creation of the universe and everything in it.
> 
> That tells me that explaining how things came to be where not a big priority when it was written. Maybe man's relationship with God is more important?
> 
> Evolution is an observable and proveable theory that shows how life propagates on this planet. That's it. It doesn't try to disprove God or prove that man is somehow inferior bc he descended from other mammals. The fact that it literally four billion years for us to finally show up seems to be an indicator that we're not exactly run-of-the-mill. And the fact that we are so vastly different from other animals... our thinking, our ability to adapt, our sheer willpower. It's not normal compared to other creatures.
> 
> And, I don't understand why Creationists try to cram both Genesis and Evolution together when they really should just say, "God created the heavens and Earth in seven days. Period. End of story."
> 
> Why try to "prove" dinosaurs and man lived at the same time or use some crazy pseudoscience to "prove" the Earth is only 14,000 years old? In the Bible, God created the Earth in seven days. If you are a literal interpreter, you don't add anything to that. Nothing! Why try to compromise?
> 
> I will now step off the soapbox...
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


See you are thinking and not limiting.  The problems I have with this thread is the word "Darwin's evelution" which leaves all other evelution theorys out of the mix.  As your first line states I beleive in both the bible and evolution and many ways these things go together.


----------



## dfreybur

nfasson said:


> I consider myself a Christian and also believe in Evolution. Does that blow your mind?



I consider myself a Mason and I also believe in traffic lights.  Does that blow your mind?

To me they are equivalent statements in that the two points mentioned have the same amount of correlation with each other.


----------



## nfasson

dfreybur said:


> I consider myself a Mason and I also believe in traffic lights.  Does that blow your mind?
> 
> To me they are equivalent statements in that the two points mentioned have the same amount of correlation with each other.



Well, that's kind of my point. They should be unrelated but certain folks have decided to deem Evolution a threat to their faith.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dfreybur

nfasson said:


> They should be unrelated but certain folks have decided to deem Evolution a threat to their faith.



There are multiple species of belief.  Different dimensions of belief can be in surface disagreement without having any effect on each other.

As Masons we are all men who accept the existence of a supreme being.  Nearly all members of this forum are members of western secular culture, and all members of all on-line forums use the secular derived Internet.  We have our own evidence in our own hearts knowing full well the external objective evidence never happens.  This is a topic each of us must have resolved to be able to thrive in society.

That's two different dimensions of belief that we all experience in our lives and that we have all come to peace with.  Does not the topic of evolution work exactly the same way?  The objective evidence outside about the mechanics of life.  The subjective evidence in our own hearts about why life happens and what it means.  This isn't even really about the Aristotle quote that an educated man can entertain an idea that he does not agree with.  This is really about dimensional perspective.

Understanding the fatherhood of the divine is a matter of spiritual breadth.  Understanding the mechanics of living beings is a matter of secular depth.  They are separate dimensions.  This is one of the types of Geometry we should be learning and teaching.  Here we have the linage of Masons going back and forward in time across the generations to show us how the topics are not in conflict, the lineage of length of time.


----------



## jvarnell

Some more stuff that is changing because of thought and more data.  Why should we always stick on one theory as we get more data.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment/2151/

I have always liked Freeman.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

FTFA... 
"_And if CO2 does get to be a problem, Dyson believes we can just do some  genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck  up the excess."

_Dr. Dyson should probably stick to his area of expertise. I suspect that the bulk of those with serious expertise in genetic engineering would disagree with him, just like most those with serious expertise in climate science do.


----------



## jvarnell

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> FTFA...
> "_And if CO2 does get to be a problem, Dyson believes we can just do some  genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck  up the excess."
> 
> _Dr. Dyson should probably stick to his area of expertise. I suspect that the bulk of those with serious expertise in genetic engineering would disagree with him, just like most those with serious expertise in climate science do.



This just show you why you are not thinking of science and new data and theories in the eveolution debate.  There are sever thing wrong in what you have said.

First just because his papers have been published in physics dosen't mean he dosen't have expertise in other subjects.  Physics pays the bills and study of climate is a hobby. 

Second genetically engineered anything is just a way to speed up evolution look at corn and the grass it started as.  Eveloution by design is the same as genetically engineered stuff.

Also with true evolution only backing the supper trees/ plant would just happen.  In the last 10 years CO2 levels have been decreasing and some farmers have been using charcole as a soil amindment and in hydroponic hot houses they have been makeing the atmosphere 2 to 4% high CO2 than outside.

Eveolution is in all asspect of life Phyics, Biology, and Religion.  We are human and not omnipotent, but I do know limiting my though and theories to the subject I get paid for will never expand the my horizons.  This Thread is do you beleive in "Darwins" Eveloution which is limiting.  I beleive in evolution but I also beleive that God (the GAOTU) started it, planed it and is letting it evolve.  This is not what Darwin was doing he was trying to control the debate by his theory.  NO one can control my thoughts, my knowledge and my conclutions they can only use the liberal/progresive way of stopping the debate by saying I don't know science, I don't have expertise and define what I say as myth.


----------



## dfreybur

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> FTFA...
> "_And if CO2 does get to be a problem, Dyson believes we can just do some  genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck  up the excess."
> 
> _Dr. Dyson should probably stick to his area of expertise. I suspect that the bulk of those with serious expertise in genetic engineering would disagree with him, just like most those with serious expertise in climate science do.



Actually, Freeman Dyson's area of expertise is called "futurist".  He makes a living projecting advances in science and technology across many fields.  His field of highest expertise is physics but he is required to know them all.  His take one any one field that he works with is about the Masters degree level.

I find it interesting that Dyson thinks the error bars in climatology are larger than full time climatologists think.  He knows multiple fields of science well enough to have a very good outsider's perspective.  Notice that the "95% certainty" in current climatology discussions means the error bar (expected error between the data and the current best models) is 5%.  That's enormous compared to other fields.

I also find it interesting that Dyson thinks the coming progress in plant genetic engineering (one of today's names for the current form of Darwinian evolution) will progress faster than current genetic engineers think.  He thinks fast growing trees will be engineered.  I had been thinking of algae being engineered as a side effect of the efforts to make solar power oil.  The tree engineering I had considered was for deeper faster growing roots to help clean out contaminated ground water (currently using poplar and dogwood at Argonne National Laboratory) then putting them to use to turn old trash landfills into lumber fields.


----------



## jvarnell

dfreybur said:


> Actually, Freeman Dyson's area of expertise is called "futurist".  He makes a living projecting advances in science and technology across many fields.  His field of highest expertise is physics but he is required to know them all.  His take one any one field that he works with is about the Masters degree level.
> 
> I find it interesting that Dyson thinks the error bars in climatology are larger than full time climatologists think.  He knows multiple fields of science well enough to have a very good outsider's perspective.  Notice that the "95% certainty" in current climatology discussions means the error bar (expected error between the data and the current best models) is 5%.  That's enormous compared to other fields.
> 
> I also find it interesting that Dyson thinks the coming progress in plant genetic engineering (one of today's names for the current form of Darwinian evolution) will progress faster than current genetic engineers think.  He thinks fast growing trees will be engineered.  I had been thinking of algae being engineered as a side effect of the efforts to make solar power oil.  The tree engineering I had considered was for deeper faster growing roots to help clean out contaminated ground water (currently using poplar and dogwood at Argonne National Laboratory) then putting them to use to turn old trash landfills into lumber fields.



Not to get to far off topic you may like http://www.oilgae.com/.  When you said what you had about the algae I thought you might and the problem with putting trees in to landfills is that the EPA requires you to stop water from getting to the trash.  This also causes the problem where stuff won't rot not having enough mosture.  If we could inject water into more landfills we could get methane production that is clean enough to make electricy but not many landfills are allowed to do this.  There is a landfill near Waco that is allowed to inject water that is producing 2 megawatts around the clock because of this.  (off subject)


----------



## jvarnell

As everyone can see everything is connected.  Laws evolve because we think we know some thing so we can't fix problems.  knowalege evovle because we share our experances and resurce and evolution happens form Darwins time into the future so that is why it is (one more time) a theory.


----------



## nfasson

The simplest solution is to just let Nature do its thing. Less people and more habitat means more efficient sequestration of greenhouse gasses. To me, believing that we can engineer trees to be more efficient than four billion years of evolution is the height of arrogance.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## jvarnell

nfasson said:


> The simplest solution is to just let Nature do its thing. Less people and more habitat means more efficient sequestration of greenhouse gasses. To me, believing that we can engineer trees to be more efficient than four billion years of evolution is the height of arrogance.
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App



The arrogance is us not understanding eveloution has eengineered the trees to consume the amount of CO2 that they need to for a blance.  It is not static and they will evelove to take in more CO2 when needed also we can just combin there DNA faster than they can. because the trees here will need to die and go away for newer and more efficant trees will grow in.  Should we be loging and giving room for new trees to evolve?  I guess all of the research into Algae is also the hight of arrogance.  In the last 10 years UT Austin has made genatic modifcations to Algae which make a strain consume 80% of its weight in CO2 from 30%.  The more CO2 it consume the more Lipids (oil) it produces.  The same is the Trees it uses the carbin to grow and releases the O2.  The problem with greenhouse gasses is we have had alot at deferent times in history and plants and animals have always evoled to handle them through evolution.  We are a carbin based life form we need carbin to live and some scientist came up with a "theory" the high CO2 atmospher of Murcury is holding in the heat more than it would if it was like ours (many theorys).  

If we really think about it we are a part of eveloution and the words "man made global warming" is just a verable in eveloution and not a big enough peice of the picture to really make anything happen.  this is shown by the amount of CO2 and other thing the EPA wants to control are put out of volcanao every hour. http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/erupting_volcanoes.html they put out more greenhouse gases every hour more than 100 time of man conbined an hour.


----------



## jvarnell

Have we ever really thought of why thing evolve.  They don't evolve for no reasion everything evolves because of a stress on the orginisam and if it can't change it die's.  Extinction of species is a part  of evolution.  So it always makes me think environmentalist are so arrogant thinking they can stop evolution. Man can only help speed up or slow down things they can not stop them.


----------



## Radical540

As the _Sacred Volume of Law_ rests on all our Blue Lodge altars, it seems almost hypocritical to embrace "evolutionism".


----------



## coachn

Radical540 said:


> As the _Sacred Volume of Law_ rests on all our Blue Lodge altars, it seems almost hypocritical to embrace "evolutionism".


I can see this being a label that would be thrown into the ring when this situation is viewed through the lens of a black and white thinker.  However, those individuals who can see truth in their chosen faith and also in aspects of what evolutionary thought promotes have no problem reconciling the perceived differences between the two.  I believe Freemasonic Ritual directs all men to learn how to reconcile such things.  That is why it is so important to do the Work that Ritual directs each of us to do.  When we don't, we have difficulty reconciling things like this.

As an aside: The SVoL is symbolic for what each man has etched within his heart.  For each it is different.  No Words written down by man can capture that.  Hence the reason for stressing that the SVoL is symbolic, as are all the symbols that are put before each man as he participates in Ritual.


----------



## Radical540

Since of the requirements of masonry is to have a Belief in a Supreme Being, it would see counterproductive to embrace evolutionism at face value. As we as masons also embrace the supreme architect of the universe- the word architect being key.
Now, who's not to say that deity "created" the concepts and steps thereof evolutionism..... a thought to ponder.


----------



## coachn

I do not believe one has to embrace a label in total to embrace aspects of truth that any one philosophy (or faith) espouses.  Finding fault or flaws within each should not dismiss any truth that each conveyed overall.  As implied before, the lens of black and white thinking tends to promote absolutism.  I've found any belief that embraces this lens to be so narrow that it prevents seeing all that is possible.  This especially with maters related to God; where the possibility that God is behind the very mechanism of Evolution exists.  

The problem mankind has with expressing Evolutionary concepts is that it has yet to understand it fully much less find the words to convey what little is known, yet.  Hence it is very easy to attack evolution at this point.  Even easier when speaking out of ignorance of what little is known.

In regard to the Supreme Architect theme: I understand that is left solely to the individual to decide how that plays out.  "God" is seen differently by each individual.  This includes how God's Works are viewed.


----------



## Aeelorty

> So it always makes me think environmentalist are so arrogant thinking they can stop evolution. Man can only help speed up or slow down things they can not stop them.



The idea is that if the environment changes to much life might change in such a way that it would be devastating for humanity. Recall what nature does best is kill. A Professor of mine once describes the body as a a fight between competing cells. Osteoblast versus osteoclast. We should always be concerned about knocking things out of balance because we can not guarantee that we will be able to balance again. Humans have been amazing at adapting and manipulating our environment and will we continue to be able to do it. That being said we do stand the change of letting vast amount of people die if we have no regard for ensuring that our environment stays as hospitable to our current life style.


----------



## Aeelorty

> The problem mankind has with expressing Evolutionary concepts is that it has yet to understand it fully much less find the words to convey what little is known, yet.



We actually have a great idea about how it works, what are you suggestion that is not know?


----------



## coachn

Aeelorty said:


> We actually have a great idea about how it works, what are you suggestion that is not know?


Magnitude my Brother.  Magnitude.  As much as is claimed to be known, and claimed to be understood, what is known and understood are drops in the ocean compared to the whole of Creation.  This can be said about both sides of the argument.   I am not suggesting this.  I am stating it without full conviction.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Proposing that the interaction of the osteoclast and the osteoblast is a "fight" is like claiming that there is a "fight" going on if an old building is demolished specifically to make way for a new building, and the "fight" is between the crews who demolished the old building and built the new building.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Some light reading on the subject:

http://greatgameindia.wordpress.com...den-link-between-darwin-marx-neitzche-hitler/

Yes, I know it's anti-Masonic, that's the point of my posting it.


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> Some light reading on the subject:
> 
> http://greatgameindia.wordpress.com...den-link-between-darwin-marx-neitzche-hitler/
> 
> Yes, I know it's anti-Masonic, that's the point of my posting it.



I know how this is wrong because because it says Masonory is anti-religion which it is not, it lets you choise any religion or dogma of a religion.  I just can't find any thing wrong with the other parts after the research I have done in to the Darwin and Marx.  After saying that I now need to do more research in to the other parts.  But I think they are just trying to tie together any organation that they think is anti-religous.  I do see Darwin as anti-religious.  Darwins theory has not explaned the hominid DNA time lines and increase in hominid 7% increase in brain power that happened all at once.

Masons like the US have a freedom of religion and not the freedom from religion.  As Masons we must have a beleif in a supreme architect of the universe but not wich dogma to follow. Dogma is not religion and religion has many dogma's.


----------



## BryanMaloney

And evolutionary theory as accepted by biology is not anti-religion, either. I know it because I am a Christian and I also am a biologist who accepts evolution as the most valid explanation of the diversity of life. As for what "Darwins theory" [sic] does or does not "explain"--what you claim makes no sense.

Here is the modern evolutionary model in a nutshell:

Biological diversity exists and a great deal of that is due to genomic and epigenomic variation, as recorded in the genome sequences and epigenomic markers. These variations can strongly influence the phenotype (organism), which can live in a population of other members of the same organism. These organisms can respond (survive and reproduce) with different levels of success, depending on genomic and epigenomic variation. Should a given different level of success be insufficiently high, the individuals with that variant will diminish and potentially die out. However, if a population is sufficiently large, these effects will be damped. However however, if a population gets isolated in some way, this effect will be magnified. Over sufficient time (usually thousands to millions of years), these can "add up". Likewise, once a species has "gone" in a different direction, it is intrinsically constrained regarding where it could "go" in the future. Now, "DNA time lines" are just a bunch of guesswork. The only "DNA time lines" that are not guesswork are timelines that have been directly sequenced. What we have is a very patchy neanderthal, a single complete denisovan, several sapiens genomes. We have several modern primate genomes, too. There is no "DNA time line". There is no measure of "brain power" that can be quantified. However, I will accept that a 7% increase in cranial capacity may have occurred. That's not inexplicable under the current model.

Variation exists, including in brain sizes. That variation could reflect greater capacity to learn. Given enough time, a limited enough population, and a rigorous enough environment, that capacity will trend. Over enough time, a 7% positive trend can occur by simple weeding out. After all, artificial selection works this way, but a LOT faster.

If one can merely, by fiat, state that evolutionary theory is automatically anti-religion, then one can make an equally valid argument about Freemasonry.


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> And evolutionary theory as accepted by biology is not anti-religion, either. I know it because I am a Christian and I also am a biologist who accepts evolution as the most valid explanation of the diversity of life. As for what "Darwins theory" [sic] does or does not "explain"--what you claim makes no sense.
> 
> Here is the modern evolutionary model in a nutshell:
> 
> Biological diversity exists and a great deal of that is due to genomic and epigenomic variation, as recorded in the genome sequences and epigenomic markers. These variations can strongly influence the phenotype (organism), which can live in a population of other members of the same organism. These organisms can respond (survive and reproduce) with different levels of success, depending on genomic and epigenomic variation. Should a given different level of success be insufficiently high, the individuals with that variant will diminish and potentially die out. However, if a population is sufficiently large, these effects will be damped. However however, if a population gets isolated in some way, this effect will be magnified. Over sufficient time (usually thousands to millions of years), these can "add up". Likewise, once a species has "gone" in a different direction, it is intrinsically constrained regarding where it could "go" in the future. Now, "DNA time lines" are just a bunch of guesswork. The only "DNA time lines" that are not guesswork are timelines that have been directly sequenced. What we have is a very patchy neanderthal, a single complete denisovan, several sapiens genomes. We have several modern primate genomes, too. There is no "DNA time line". There is no measure of "brain power" that can be quantified. However, I will accept that a 7% increase in cranial capacity may have occurred. That's not inexplicable under the current model.
> 
> Variation exists, including in brain sizes. That variation could reflect greater capacity to learn. Given enough time, a limited enough population, and a rigorous enough environment, that capacity will trend. Over enough time, a 7% positive trend can occur by simple weeding out. After all, artificial selection works this way, but a LOT faster.
> 
> If one can merely, by fiat, state that evolutionary theory is automatically anti-religion, then one can make an equally valid argument about Freemasonry.



No you must not have read what I said........DARWIN's Evelution theroy is anti-religous not all eveloutionay theorys...


----------



## dfreybur

jvarnell said:


> I do see Darwin as anti-religious.



You have the arrow of effect and cause pointed in the wrong direction there.

It does happen that certain teachers of certain sects of a religion can be anti-Darwin.  As religion is not a self correcting process, anti-Darwin stances do not automatically self-correct out of existence.  Of course the vast number of religions in the world have no teachers and no sects that conflict with Darwin.

It is possible but rare for any one scientist to be anti-religion.  Darwin, of course, was not among these erroneous scientists.  Science itself is a self correcting process and as a result all anti-religion stances in science get corrected out of existence.  Science is a neutral process that does not address religion.

Darwin himself view that religion would oppose him.  It's why he delayed publishing his Origin of Species for two decades.  His wife was a fundie and he preferred domestic tranquility to controversy.

For a fight to exist, only one party is needed.  Do not confuse the existence of a fight with mutual combat intent.


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> No you must not have read what I said........DARWIN's Evelution theroy is anti-religous not all eveloutionay theorys...



NOBODY USES DARWIN'S THEORY ANYMORE! NOBODY USES IT! IT IS OBSOLETE! THERE IS NO POINT IN ARGUING AGAINST IT!
We might as well argue against Aristotelian physics, argue against phlogiston, argue against the miasma model of disease origin, argue against non-atomic continuity of matter, argue against the model that claims light has infinite speed.

NOBODY uses Darwin's theory. It's purely of historical interest.


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> NOBODY USES DARWIN'S THEORY ANYMORE! NOBODY USES IT! IT IS OBSOLETE! THERE IS NO POINT IN ARGUING AGAINST IT!
> We might as well argue against Aristotelian physics, argue against phlogiston, argue against the miasma model of disease origin, argue against non-atomic continuity of matter, argue against the model that claims light has infinite speed.
> 
> NOBODY uses Darwin's theory. It's purely of historical interest.


The theard was "do you beleive in darwins evolution"  that is why the discusion.  Also as a part of another thread I went back and read morals and dogma again and felt the chapter on the fellow craft illustrated my thoughts on the subject of darwin and politics in this thread. I was never arguing about any thing I was answering with the reasons behind my statments about the word theory and how darwin was being used by the anti-religion communistic groups.  Again I think that the fellow craft section of moral explain my thinking.


----------



## jvarnell

dfreybur said:


> You have the arrow of effect and cause pointed in the wrong direction there.
> 
> It does happen that certain teachers of certain sects of a religion can be anti-Darwin.  As religion is not a self correcting process, anti-Darwin stances do not automatically self-correct out of existence.  Of course the vast number of religions in the world have no teachers and no sects that conflict with Darwin.
> 
> It is possible but rare for any one scientist to be anti-religion.  Darwin, of course, was not among these erroneous scientists.  Science itself is a self correcting process and as a result all anti-religion stances in science get corrected out of existence.  Science is a neutral process that does not address religion.
> 
> Darwin himself view that religion would oppose him.  It's why he delayed publishing his Origin of Species for two decades.  His wife was a fundie and he preferred domestic tranquility to controversy.
> 
> For a fight to exist, only one party is needed.  Do not confuse the existence of a fight with mutual combat intent.


No I see it the way I stated it.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Radical540 said:


> As the _Sacred Volume of Law_ rests on all our Blue Lodge altars, it seems almost hypocritical to embrace "evolutionism".



Really? Which VSL would that be, exactly? Mine makes it quite clear that nature, including evolution, is "the way things work". So I'll thank you to not call me a hypocrite. And then I'll point out that it may be your choice to believe the universe works according to some collection of ancient myths, but not all of your brothers have made that particular choice.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam

Radical540 said:


> Since of the requirements of masonry is to have a Belief in a Supreme Being, it would see counterproductive to embrace evolutionism at face value.


For anyone who understands science, including the theory of evolution, there simply is no "face value" to believe in. Conflating that understanding with religious faith is a mistake.


----------



## BryanMaloney

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> For anyone who understands science, including the theory of evolution, there simply is no "face value" to believe in. Conflating that understanding with religious faith is a mistake.



There are people who have very weak faith, very weak, indeed. In their minds, any model that could be interpreted to work without God's activity and without a literal interpretation of their (English translation with modern English metaphors and never any historical context)  VSL can ONLY be taken to be active atheism. They can't stomach the idea that there could ever be a model that permits one to not accept God, because in their minds, absolutely and explicitly requiring someone to not be atheist is the ONLY way to prevent everyone from automatically becoming atheist. It's pretty sad.


----------



## Isaih

I joined this mason community because I have a particular interest in the skull and crossbones used by a member "Widow Son" and as the rules of joining did not prohibit me, I hope he may help my research.

And started reading this topic out of curiosity.

Interesting to see the difference of opinions on what to me is  an easily discerned fundamental truth .

I'm surprised that masons are part of the mass delusion.  Shocked actually. Having read through the topic , think my view (mighty protestant) might have value to some.

All the traits of Darwin's finches are to be found in the genepool of finches. Darwin did not know that in his day, science does now.
They're either turned off or on.
Dominate or recede, to my understanding.
My father has blue eyes, my mother brown.
Have I evolved by having brown eyes?
Have I devolved?
Or is the information for blue and brown eyes in my DNA, and the brown is switched on and the blue off when producing cells for my eyes, ?
Is the gene for blue eyes from my father in my seed?

If my brother with blue eyes is perceived to be more handsome by women and breeds more successfully than me, does that change the DNA code?
Has he evolved?

As far as a creator of what I call god's machines. And so all life is-
DNA Code either proves the existence of a creator of every life form, or disproves Information theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

If you believe evolution disproves Information Theory, you might stop believing in the computer you are currently using because it wouldn't work without Information Theory application.

I believe Paul prophecises Darwinian Evolution and the discovery of the gene coding in Romans 1:20, if you include the word "when", which seems needed to correct the tense of the next line.

*For (when) the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:*
*
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things*


----------



## Aeelorty

> My father has blue eyes, my mother brown.
> Have I evolved by having brown eyes?
> Have I devolved?
> Or is the information for blue and brown eyes in my DNA, and the brown is switched on and the blue off when producing cells for my eyes, ?
> Is the gene for blue eyes from my father in my seed?
> 
> If my brother with blue eyes is perceived to be more handsome by women and breeds more successfully than me, does that change the DNA code?
> Has he evolved?



I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make with these rhetorical questions or what side of the fence you fall on. So forgive me if I make some bad assumptions. 

So evolutionary theory describes a change over time and it seems like you might be missing the point, I'm not sure. So the code itself is actually very universal, the same four bases are used by all living life that we know of, so the code does not change. What is changed might be number of individuals expressing a certain trait. Evolution theory and information theory don't conflict at all and they are used in examples for each other quite frequently. I would also like to say that individuals do not evolve, groups do. So your brother wouldn't have evolved but the population group might depending on the circumstances again to have only blue eyed people or people with radically differentiated shades of blue eyes. Again not enough info to really make any predictions on.


----------



## Isaih

Aeelorty , each kind of lifeform has its own genepool.
People have their genepool and lettuces have theirs, and so on.
these natural boundaries between lifeforms cannot  be crossed. (barring Agrobacteria/fallen angels or scientific meddling)

If they could all life would have "evolved" as  a malange of everything. Not distinct kinds of lifeforms as we see today.

My point was that my brother and I carry the same genes. Some are dominant in me that are recessive in him and vice versa.
In future generations this might progress in a certain direction or just as easily reverse. But neither of us could ever hope to have descendants that grow lettuce leaves from their eye sockets because that isn't part of the human genepool.

Each genepool was designed and is fixed. It is what it was when created.

---

According to Information Theory in order to have a language, you must have a sender of it.
DNA code is a language. Either it had a sender of it ( our creator) or Information theory is wrong.

Evolutionary theory, is to me, so logically absurd, its very absurdity makes it difficult to argue against.
If someone claims pink elephants create rainclouds by licking lollipops on Tuesdays, you can debate that notion by stating how rain is actually created. But its very difficult to break down the Pink elephant lollipop theory itself because it is so patently absurd.


----------



## Aeelorty

So the way you understand Evolution is a very absurd theory, so you are right to reject it. That being said your understanding is very inaccurate. It's really a strawman argument. To be more specific you don't have the and combination of alleles as your brother,  unless you're twins. Gene as you are using it is not the same as it is used academically. So you and I have the same genes but different versions of those genes. And the example you used is poor because there isn't a conceivable reason we would develop down that path. However it is possible knowing the right code to make it happen given the time and resources since lettuce and humans both use the same 4 nucleic acids to write that code.  Now if you look how DA operates you will see receivers and senders of info in the chemicals and proteins that operate on dna. I think you are making the false assumption that intelligence is necessary for info transfer


----------



## Isaih

Aeelorty, I am not a scientist, as you've rightly pointed out my understanding is probably flawed.
I'm not convinced it is innacurate though. I believe I have the same genepool exactly as my brother and indeed you too.

What I believe is we all have the genepool god created in Adam.

Each kind has a distinct genepool, and although there are obvious similarities in design and components between kinds, that is a reflection of a common creator and raw materials, rather than evidence of  life evolving from the same simple organism.

In Genesis it says that fallen angels mated with men, corrupting the genepool.
This supernatural corruption of natural law( which is distinct incorruptible kinds of lifeforms), is probably the reason for Noah's flood.
As in the days of Noah so shall it be at the end, may partly be showing us that the genepool of man may be corrupted again by the fallen angels.

Which may, if it happens (or happened)   be mistaken for human evolution.

Most men my age, I know, for example are considerably taller than their father.
I have a  bizzare theory on the cause of this, but no more bizzare than evolutionary theory.

That it might be caused by having fallen angel DNA injected into us as babies.
Most men my age in protestant countries (and women) were injected with chromosomes from a baby aborted in 1965.

Its not impossible that this baby was conceived via some flavour of demonology for the purpose of corrupting the human genepool with fallen angel DNA.
I like this wacky theory a lot more than evolutionary theory, as an explanation for a taller population.
It is certainly very odd that most of us have been injected with chromosomes from the same baby.

http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

Or maybe growth is related to the amount and quality of nourishment one receives when growing up?


----------



## Aeelorty

> In Genesis it says that fallen angels mated with men, corrupting the genepool.



So this is not a theory that is testable by science and is immediately excluded from any debate using science because it cannot be tested. Now evolution is a wacky theory it starts with some very basic principles that we can actually test and do sanity checks on. 



> Each kind has a distinct genepool, and although there are obvious similarities in design and components between kinds, that is a reflection of a common creator and raw materials, rather than evidence of life evolving from the same simple organism.



So we have actually be able to introduce genes from one species into another and do it very frequently in bacteria. Petsmart sells a glofish which are genetically modified fish that have a jellyfish luminescence gene spliced in. Viruses act by changing the host DNA or RNA to reproduce and bacteria from different species and genus exchange DNA in the form of plasmids. If you look at biolmolecues you can actually see how they have evolved, one common way is for a sub-unit to be replicated to create a new unit made up of repeats of those sub-units. Myoglobin and Hemoglobin is a great example of this. 



> I like this wacky theory a lot more than evolutionary theory, as an explanation for a taller population.


There are better theories for why people are taller than others and science isn't about what theory you like its about what can be disproved.


----------



## admarcus1

Isaih said:


> In Genesis it says that fallen angels mated with men, corrupting the genepool.



I don't remember that part.


----------



## BryanMaloney

There is no such thing as "devolving" in biological evolution. There is no such thing as "better" or "higher" in biological evolution except when speaking loosely. If you think in terms of "evolve" vs. "devolve", you have no understanding of how evolution theory is used by biologists, none at all.


----------



## BryanMaloney

admarcus1 said:


> I don't remember that part.



Genesis 6:1-4 mentions "sons of God" marrying "daughters of men". However, traditional Jewish interpretation is that the "sons of God" were those people still of a "Godly" line--some of Seth's descendents, not angels. Christian scholarship likewise cites Christ stating that angels do not marry. However, apocryphal works, like the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees (which are very popular among occultists), explicitly identify them as angels. Enoch is not considered to be Canonical by most Christians, neither Protestant/Reformed/Evangalical/"Non-Denominational, nor Catholic, nor Orthodox, although some of these Christians do consider it to be "readable" (has value but should not be taken as normative). It is eagerly embraced by fringe groups, though, because it's a rousing story.


----------



## Isaih

(Bryan I was being facetious with the use of evolve and devolve, I don't believe in evolution or devolution, that was my point.

Would you agree that Life is ,at a microscopic level, more complex a machine than any manmade machine?
Do you think machines can design and build themselves through the sole mechanism of "millions and millions of years" ?

This is logically absurd to me.

I did like the book of Enoch,( I must be a fringe group.)

"There are better theories for why people are taller than others and science isn't about what theory you like its about what can be disproved"

I don't think there are any theories more interesting than mine on this issue, but sure its open to ridicule. The improved nutrition theory is almost as ludicrous as the evolution one though.
There must be a reason for marked increase in height. In my case I'm 4 inches taller than my father and that is usual. He grew up on a farm and ate very well.

Aeelorty I was referring to Genesis 6:9 which may explain legends of the Minotaur , the 6 fingered redhaired giants the American Indians fought, Goliath( who apparently died on the spot where Solomon mined his quarries)



And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

.............

Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.(perfect in his generations is an odd phrase, and may refer to him not having his genecode corrupted by fallen angel DNA)


----------



## Aeelorty

> Would you agree that Life is ,at a microscopic level, more complex a machine than any manmade machine?
> Do you think machines can design and build themselves through the sole mechanism of "millions and millions of years" ?



So it is important to point out that you can "evolve" chemicals in the lab to have higher binding affinity for a given ligand. Yes machines can build themselves given the proper coding and hardware. 

I don't think you understand that your objections to evolution fall outside the realm of scientific critique. This means they really don't have any value to a discussion based in science because the scientific method has certain perimeters of operation and your theories fall outside of that. Could they be right? Maybe but we have no way to test it so therefore we can't use it in science. Now evolution can be tested and is therefore a better scientific theory. 

Now you seem to be focusing on sexual reproduction in humans through a supernatural force, we can bypass that entire argument by looking at asexual reproduction. Bacteria can reproduce asexually and the offspring should be an exact copy. Mutation causes the offspring be different genetically and they can be caused by a few different things. tautomerization of the nucleotide can cause a change in the sequence. Nucleotides can be added to extend the sequence an extra space or deleted to shorten the sequence, they can be switched for a completely different nucleotide. This is where mutations occur and mutation is what drives evolution. I don't see how angels would be influencing these small singular changes by mating with humans. You idea invokes this sudden massive change but that is not at all what evolution is like and we know this because we can look and see that things change in smaller increments. 

The lettuce example from earlier would be unlikely because we would need to acquire the genes and code to produce those traits and there is very little chance any of the required mutations to occur and also be beneficial for reproduction, there are too many steps that would have to happen for that example to every really be plausible. Now if you start with one set of organisms it is much more reasonable to think that a very small change like a repeated subunit in a protein could be beneficial. Now the group starts to split there because not all will get this new trait. After many splits due to small changes over a very long time we can get species.


----------



## Isaih

Chemicals do not have a gene code. How is that relevant?

You refer to a code.(lettuce)
How does a code write itself?
How does a machine more complex than a NASA computerised space vehicle, design and build itself?

Science explains this process as occurring through the mechanism of time. "million and millions of years."
Is that a logical explanation? Not to me.
It is a scientific explanation.



I don't confuse science with logic.
Logic is the underlying justice of this creation. Science is a religion created by man.


A lettuce is a more complex machine than the NASA spacecraft. Science cannot hope to build a lettuce from the raw materials. Can't you grasp how incredible life is?

Why didn't evolution produce NASA spacecrafts? They're a much simpler machine than a lettuce. Surely they'd have evolved in prehistoric time because machines design and build themselves. Its scientific afterall.

Science observes what is there. Has no appreciation for what is not there.
Indeed takes the rule of logic itself for granted. Logic itself need not exist.
 And like all forms of religion can be perverted for use by men for their own ends.
And evolutionary theory is proof, to me, that that is exactly what has happened with the religion of science.


----------



## Aeelorty

> Chemicals do not have a gene code. How is that relevant?
> 
> You refer to a code.(lettuce)
> How does a code write itself?
> How does a machine more complex than a NASA computerised space vehicle, design and build itself?
> 
> Science explains this process as occurring through the mechanism of time. "million and millions of years."
> Is that a logical explanation? Not to me.
> It is a scientific explanation.



So again it's back to your lack of knowledge on the topic. You take some general idea that you understand as evolution and then use that very limited data to reach a conclusion that with more data you would have avoided. I personally have always look for information to disprove my ideas rather than supporting evidence because we have a bias towards ignoring things that go against what we believe. By looking to be wrong I found that bias to be minimized and my mistakes to be corrected more quickly and efficiently. I would charge you to look into evolutionary theory more so that you can understand it better and will lose many of the misconceptions you have. It may be that you find better stronger evidence in your mind against it rather than the weaker ones you have given. 

Chemicals are what makes life, which is essentially a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions are what cause the mutation in genes and at the same time drive life functions. Biomolecules are used as evidence to support evolutionary theory. So when we refer to the DNA code we are using short hand to describe the arrangement of DNA molecules and how they can transfer data. This data being generally the synthesis of different biomolecules. The example I gave was to show that you can actually select for molecules that bind to certain things with increasing levels of affinity. So nature did evolve flying organisms with a great diversity in locomotion. There is no real benefit for the cost of space going for an organism to go there, ie it cost prohibitive amount of energy to go into space and their is no obvious benefit for an organism to do so. When spend energy going to space when there are energetically cheaper methods of what ever it is an organism would gain by going to space? 

Back to the issue of a DNA code. We call it a code because we focus on the information that it passes along and we find that to be a convenient nomenclature. We focus on the information capacity of DNA but RNA is also a very important nucleic acid that does more actual work than DNA. Many Viruses actually use RNA exclusively as its genetic material and there are multiple theories that claim with support that life originally used RNA over DNA. RNA can form multiple different shapes but has less stability than DNA. So the idea goes roughly along the line that certain molecules had shapes that allow for replication. These molecules have been shown to be synthesized by high energy impacts and lighting. Now these molecules can react with each other and the ones with the best ability to replicate are the ones that continue the cycle until we start getting more complex systems of reactions that we call life.  At a much later point RNA is replaced by DNA as the molecule for storing this information on replicating because it lacks an -OH group that makes it more stable thus better able at maintain the info. Of that is the rough idea behind the RNA world. It's not a very accurate description dues to the lack of detail, but should suffice. I would note that prions are proteins that affect other proteins causing them to take on the prions shape, Mad Cow diseases is an example. 


So Science does avoid using the supernatural to explain anything because it often times is used as a way to stop a line of questioning and reasoning. Think about the contentious history or astronomy and the church. Or think of diseases and how it was blamed on sin or demons. Scientific method is designed to get at the heart of the universe we live in and avoid those lazy "God made it that way" explanations. To me knowing how evolution works and the intricate details of the chemistry and how it all ticks, knowing where the mistakes happen, knowing how truly complex the process is but more importantly how it operates by a only a few simple rules really shows how beautiful the world is. See to me science allows me to get into what the world truly is to appreciate it more and the God that created it. I understand why science avoids appeals to God because in a very real sense these attempts at faith are often blocks to viewing the world in more detail. These details show the true beauty of the world. I don't feel the need to reject science on religious grounds because to me science is just another way of viewing God's creation.


----------



## Isaih

Evolution theory has been constantly altered  since it was originally proposed simply to suggest the superiority of the white races . It is now an explanation of the origins of life itself.
So forgive me for not keeping up to date with current dogma.

Aeelorty, I don't think you are making logical connections in your reasoning.
This is why I use the NASA spacecraft as anaology.
If you agree to use it , you may discover the flaw in your logic.

By saying science has proved that mutations occur through lightning or bacteria, is like saying a rock hit the spacecraft and caused a dent.
It does not explain how the spacecraft was designed or built. Nor can the dent likely improve the design.
Would you agreed with that?

How could lightning create a machine? How can just the mechanism of time do it?
Its a very simple point, and doesn't require complex casuistry to answer the question.
It cannot.
Going into the complexities of how the spacecraft's engine works does not explain away the origins of existence of the engine itself in the first instance. An engine of enormous complexity that works.
It only serves to confuse the points of conflict.

Science has an agenda which is god does not exist. It is the foundation of sand on which much scientific theory is based. Including medicine.
Is it scientific to assume god doesn't exist? Yes
Is it logical ? no

The reason science calls DNA a code is because that is precisely what it is. Recorded information with very exact meaning and purpose.

Modern medicine incidentally seems to be created and under the control of the knights of St john. Who apparently took over the Templar secrets , certainly their possessions in the 14th century.
And the use of caduceus symbol has become synonymous with that monopoly of medical dogma.
It bears a remarkable similarity, to me, to the double helix. Which of course wasn't discovered until long afterwards.
I wonder if this isn't part of the Kabbalistic knowledge of the Templars.
I think the men who created and control science, and western medicine know damn well god exists and are indeed religious orders. And evolution theory is promulgated with full knowledge that it is false, to help the canaille become atheists. In line with their esoteric religious agenda.
This is why I am shocked that so many masons here, believe in evolution.


----------



## BryanMaloney

ALL OF SCIENCE is "constantly altered". That's one of the things about science, it's not just a received dogma. Science has no agenda at all regarding God. None. No agenda at all. The idea that it has any sort of agenda on this topic is just propaganda promulgated by those who would keep us all ignorant (and, I might even daresay, bound to the decrees of an out-of-control religious hierarchy). Science is part of what makes up the Enlightenment ideal behind Masonry. Faith is another part.


----------



## Aeelorty

First the rod of asclepius is what is supposed to be used in medicine but some ignorant people use the caduceus. Typically it's businessmen who never learned the difference and confused the two, insurance companies are notable for this. 



> By saying science has proved that mutations occur through lightning or bacteria, is like saying a rock hit the spacecraft and caused a dent.
> It does not explain how the spacecraft was designed or built. Nor can the dent likely improve the design.
> Would you agreed with that?
> 
> How could lightning create a machine? How can just the mechanism of time do it?
> Its a very simple point, and doesn't require complex casuistry to answer the question.



The machine to body analogy is a poor example because the body is a set of chemical reactions not a machine. They have similarities but your mistakes are introduced to carrying the analogy beyond its limits. If you look at bone formation and destruction you will find that it is a balance between two types of cells osteoblast and osteocytes. One lays bone down the other "eats" it for the calcium to use in other areas. Single cells have this same principle of equilibrium and all through the ecosystem you will find this pattern. As above, so below. A spaceship does not have this same characteristic, the engine for instance is not a equilibrium reaction, it goes till there is no more fuel and can be controlled by that. So see there is a difference

My point about lighting was that organic molecules can be generated by a source of high energy and abundant molecules in the atmosphere. These molecules have an interesting characteristic of forming shapes and combining together without further energy input. Isolated phospholipids will form a bilayer when introduced into water. They do this naturally because it is energetically favorable. Many biomolecues have this property and since they can be made in a natural environment they can "self assemble". It is an important counterpoint.  



> Is it scientific to know god doesn't exist? Yes



This here is not true for an already stated reason that I will again repeat. Science cannot test the supernatural. I cannot test for God and I can not test for his intervention. Since it is unable to be tested it falls completely outside of the realm of science. If a person ever suggest that science either proves God's existence or denies God's existence, that person should be ignored because they are not qualified to speak on that subject. All any scientist can say is their opinion on the existence of God and how they might personally not find need for God to exist. But that's their opinion alone and not "Science." What can be done within the limits of scientific inquire is only that which can be tested, like how do things change, what causes that change, when did the change occur, what species changed into these other species. What one really does when they say they don't believe in evolution is to say they don't believe change is possible. But change does occur, we can see it happen in a lab, we can make it happen, we can predict what causes change, when something will change, how long it will take for that change to spread to other individuals in the group. That is the power of science, it have explanatory power and the ability to make predictions.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Aeelorty said:


> Back to the issue of a DNA code. We call it a code because we focus on the information that it passes along and we find that to be a convenient nomenclature.



Much like the biological term "cell" was adopted because a sample of cork looked at in an early microscope had "chambers" that reminded the observer of monks' "cells". We don't presume that every living organism is filled with tiny monks, though, and then invent flights of fancy upon such a presumption.


----------



## Isaih

BryanMaloney said:


> ALL OF SCIENCE is "constantly altered". That's one of the things about science, it's not just a received dogma. Science has no agenda at all regarding God. None. No agenda at all. The idea that it has any sort of agenda on this topic is just propaganda promulgated by those who would keep us all ignorant (and, I might even daresay, bound to the decrees of an out-of-control religious hierarchy). Science is part of what makes up the Enlightenment ideal behind Masonry. Faith is another part.



Well I'm a protestant, not catholic. so its unfair to tar my beliefs with that brush.
Religious dogma /accusations of heresy are a completely different ballpark to the simple assumption that we created by god.

Aeelorty if my analogy of the spacecraft is too flawed to be useful, can you suggest another one. Because this is the most effective way for me to make sense of complexities.

Again I'd suggest there is all the difference in the world between a chemical compound and a lifeform . This is just dust of the earth.


----------



## Aeelorty

> Again I'd suggest there is all the difference in the world between a chemical compound and a lifeform . This is just dust of the earth.



Yes but unfortunately you can't prove that. Not everything needs to be inspected at all times under the scope of science. Science has it's limits and knows those limits. I think there is great beauty in knowing that our bodies, like are lives, is a mass of equilibria. We are meant to stay the golden mean.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Isaih said:


> Religious dogma /accusations of heresy are a completely different ballpark to the simple assumption that we created by god.



Protestants have PLENTY of dictatorial clergy who want the people to remain ignorant and blindly follow their various dogmatic pronouncements. An out-of-control religious hierarchy is not automatically Catholic. It can be 100% Protestant, even if the "hierarchy" consists of no more than a pastor and some deacons.

Religious dogma: Insisting that, if a scientific model changes, it means that it MUST be false. This is religious dogma because it demands that science (an empirical and self-adjusting process) is wrong specifically for being empirical and self-adjusting. By such "logic" one should reject all modern medicine and demand that one be bled and given laxatives for every illness, since "germ theory" (for example) is a change in medical models. Therefore, since there was a change, it must be false, and we must never, ever, ever, ever, under any circumstance take any medication for any purpose nor consult a doctor.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2

Isaih said:


> Science has an agenda which is god does not exist.


This sentence seems to be the entire basis for your argument.  I dismiss this statement as mere conjecture.  I know, I know, you can quote dozens of scientists and pseudo-scientists who do not believe in God.  This does not prove that science has an "agenda" to prove that God does not exist.  It merely proves that some people who went to college are Atheists.

You seem to believe that science and God are incompatible - that if creationism is true then evolution cannot be true.  Unlike you, I am not prepared to place limits upon God and upon the techniques he may have used to fashion the universe.


----------



## BryanMaloney

I can find Protestants who are vehemently anti-Masonic. Does that mean that Protestantism has an agenda against Masonry?


----------



## BryanMaloney

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> You seem to believe that science and God are incompatible - that if creationism is true then evolution cannot be true.  Unlike you, I am not prepared to place limits upon God and upon the techniques he may have used to fashion the universe.



You don't even have to put limits upon God to do that. There is a bizarre intellectual tradition in the West that presumes without question that God only acts upon necessity, that He only does what He has no choice but to do. God chose Abraham. Does that mean that God could never have chosen anyone else, instead, that His "hands were tied", so to speak, and that He is just a helpless puppet? If God did use evolution as His mechanism, that's not a limit upon Him, it's a limit He imposed upon creation.


----------



## otherstar

BryanMaloney said:


> You don't even have to put limits upon God to do that. There is a bizarre intellectual tradition in the West that presumes without question that God only acts upon necessity, that He only does what He has no choice but to do. God chose Abraham. Does that mean that God could never have chosen anyone else, instead, that His "hands were tied", so to speak, and that He is just a helpless puppet? If God did use evolution as His mechanism, that's not a limit upon Him, it's a limit He imposed upon creation.



I think that you are pointing out one common misconception of God's causality: that God does what he must do (re-warmed Leibniz, to wit: that if God created the world, it must be the best of all possible worlds, and could not be otherwise). This does indeed put a limit upon God, and is, as I shall attempt to demonstrate, NOT the manner in which God causes things to be.

If actually, God's causality works the other way around. God is a necessary cause. If God causes X, then X exists (and could be no other way because God caused it to be). Everything must have some explanation, there must be some cause for everything in existence (this is called the Principle of Sufficient Reason). If all causes are caused by something else, then there is a simultaneous infinite series of caused-causes, which is impossible; or, there must be some first cause that is outside of the series to explain the existence of the series. A simultaneous infinite series is not possible. Therefore there must be some first cause that is itself not caused by another that explains the existence of all other causes. This First Cause we call God (paraphrasing St. Thomas Aquinas in this paragraph). God thus fulfills the Principle of Sufficient Reason for the entire Universe by explaining the existence of the same.

Thus, if evolution is the mechanism for effecting God's creation (as I think it is), then it follows that the evolutionary processes are limits upon creation that have been imposed by God.


----------



## BryanMaloney

otherstar said:


> I think that you are pointing out one common misconception of God's causality: that God does what he must do (re-warmed Leibniz, to wit: that if God created the world, it must be the best of all possible worlds, and could not be otherwise).



Why? It's argument from necessity.

There are no limits upon God. If God is limited, then God is unworthy of being God. If God is limited, then God is just another creature--a limited "God" is not God at all.


----------



## otherstar

BryanMaloney said:


> Why? It's argument from necessity.
> 
> There are no limits upon God. If God is limited, then God is unworthy of being God. If God is limited, then God is just another creature--a limited "God" is not God at all.



What's the "argument from necessity" you are talking about? I do not think you are representing it well, so I tried to clarify the issue.

Did I put a limit upon God? Show me how I did, if that is what you are claiming. I was trying to agree with you.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Argument from necessity, the logical fallacy that a conclusion is valid because it must be as it is and can be no other way.


----------



## otherstar

BryanMaloney said:


> Argument from necessity, the logical fallacy that a conclusion is valid because it must be as it is and can be no other way.



Thank you for clearing that up.


----------



## Rifleman1776

I believe evolution is undeniable. We can see it everyday. But, I also belive it is compatabile with God's creation. He created and set the world in motion.


----------



## Warrior1256

RedTemplar said:


> I don't know how everything has come to be. But The Great Architect is behind it all.


Good answer, I agree.


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> There is no such thing as "devolving" in biological evolution. There is no such thing as "better" or "higher" in biological evolution except when speaking loosely. If you think in terms of "evolve" vs. "devolve", you have no understanding of how evolution theory is used by biologists, none at all.


 If we are evolving the laguage because of something we preceive and it is in the past is that not devoltion to go back to previouse scintific concepts?


----------



## MaineMason

I believe that the G.A.O.T.U. is smart enough to put His hand to nature and let it take its course. I am disinterested in the evolution/creation debate. My trust is in the Deity. That being said, I think that the Deity is smarter than the fundamentalist preacher of any religion. It's one of the reasons why I am a Mason. As we progress through the degrees of the Lodge, so does the earth progress. That is all I have to say.


----------

