Science/Environment Explaining evolution and natural selection.

[ferball]

Get him to turn up at the MCG one day and during half time wonder out to the centre circle and say "Hi all, I'm god, how you all doing?....ha ha no need to answer, I know.....by the way, I'm going to get Richmond to lose this game"

How do you know its a him?

 

[ferball]

Ok, I’ve decided to humour you, even though it’s a ridiculous fallacious situation to be put in.
You would measure the existence of god using the same methods/instruments one would use to prove the existence of unicorns or fairies, Santa Clause, vampires, werewolves, fire breathing dragons, things of that nature or non existence or fantasy or any other way would would go about proving a negative.

Now how would you come to the conclusion that a “god” would go about actually existing, giving the evidence for one, is zero?

100 years ago the idea of "luminiferous aether" was considered quackery by the best scientific minds of the time but now the idea of a Higgs Field is a fundamental part of modern particle physics. Such a universal field was considered disproven by early experiments on the nature of subatomic structure. Can you explain the difference between those things or do you just take it on faith that physicists know what they are talking about?

The evidence for the Higgs Field appeared less than a decade ago, after nearly 50 years of speculation based on someone's mathematical opinions. I'm explaining this to you to illustrate the limits of sciences ability to "prove" things.

Can you explain the Higgs Field to me properly? Of course not. For a start you'd probably try to use English when it only be properly explained in the language we call mathematics. So even if you do understand the maths behind it, I don't and it would take you a decade to teach it to me, if I was up to learning it.

BTW Unicorns exist. You obviously don't have kids or you would have seen millions of them when you went Christmas shopping.

 

[chelseacarlton]

The world is constantly changing. Obviously if there is a creator of some sort they created processes not static situations.

And lets face it setting up functional processes leading to greater levels of complexity over time is certainly a more impressive feat than just creating a static situation. Building ... well designing a train is more impressive than drawing one. Which makes me wonder why fundies are finding these subtle ways to diss god.

I know Christians who think evolution is real (and the big bang for that matter.) They think DNA is a significantly more impressive creation than the Fundy version of creation. But I don't think they think its evidence for god's existence as such. The person who best illustrates this is my mum. She makes a clear delineation between reality and what reality is with her faith included. She specifies that faith is a testable process and so reality will test it. The fact there is no actual evidence for the existence of God is a test of her faith.

And yeah I know.... but she is my mum so you lot shut up. And I guess she has more scientific cred than most people posting here. (Ie Groundbreaking PhD in plant genetics 50 odd years ago, decades of work teaching and then designing science curricula including national ones. etc etc.) Its interesting the mental gymnastics people go thru to maintain their irrational fantasies. Look at chelseacarlton and their incredibly strawmannish idea that I am some sort of Christian apologist.

The point is this process (existence, the universe, whatever) is happening, we have no idea beyond the basics how it started, there is a point beyond which we can say nothing because our models break down (the big bang).

We can speculate about the ultimate nature of the universe, something we didn't evolve to perceive, and that might include the considertion of a some sort of creator. This is all philosophy.

And we can measure aspects of it and make incredibly detailed descriptions of the process those aspects of the universe undergo. This is science.

Lol
I accused you of using the same tactics as Christian apologists, not of being one, so your accusation of my strawmanning is a strawman.
“If there is a creator......”, why even bother with such a ridiculous claim in the first place?
Why stop at one in particular, why not two creators, or three or ad-infinitum?
As for you ma, she was obviously brainwashed young, many great scientific minds held absurdly odd beliefs, I’m sure I don’t need to name names!
The rest of your post is hypothetical jargon.

 

[chelseacarlton]

100 years ago the idea of "luminiferous aether" was considered quackery by the best scientific minds of the time but now the idea of a Higgs Field is a fundamental part of modern particle physics. Such a universal field was considered disproven by early experiments on the nature of subatomic structure. Can you explain the difference between those things or do you just take it on faith that physicists know what they are talking about?

The evidence for the Higgs Field appeared less than a decade ago, after nearly 50 years of speculation based on someone's mathematical opinions. I'm explaining this to you to illustrate the limits of sciences ability to "prove" things.

Can you explain the Higgs Field to me properly? Of course not. For a start you'd probably try to use English when it only be properly explained in the language we call mathematics. So even if you do understand the maths behind it, I don't and it would take you a decade to teach it to me, if I was up to learning it.

BTW Unicorns exist. You obviously don't have kids or you would have seen millions of them when you went Christmas shopping.

So?
Things change as we grow our knowledge?
What the **** is your actual point?

Oh dear?

Yes, I have two kids and the several stuffed unicorns on my daughters bed aren’t evidence of actual unicorns!
What the **** are you smoking or drinking or snorting, PM me, I’ll get you to come over?!

 

[ferball]

Lol
I accused you of using the same tactics as Christian apologists, not of being one, so your accusation of my strawmanning is a strawman.
“If there is a creator......”, why even bother with such a ridiculous claim in the first place?
Why stop at one in particular, why not two creators, or three or ad-infinitum?
As for you ma, she was obviously brainwashed young, many great scientific minds held absurdly odd beliefs, I’m sure I don’t need to name names!
The rest of your post is hypothetical jargon.

As for my ma, she's not stupid enough to let that influence how she assesses the world.

But what "tactics" are you talking about?

genuinely ... I don't normally take enough notice of this stuff.

 

[ferball]

So?
Things change as we grow our knowledge?
What the fu** is your actual point?

Oh dear?

Yes, I have two kids and the several stuffed unicorns on my daughters bed aren’t evidence of actual unicorns!
What the fu** are you smoking or drinking or snorting, PM me, I’ll get you to come over?!

Actual unicorns? What did I buy my daughter then if it wasn't an actual unicorn? Am I hallucinating it? Its been a while sinse I've had mushrooms.

AS for my actual point... what is the difference between God and the Higgs Boson? Not literally but in terms of your criteria about what is evidence and what isn't? How is it any less ridiculous than a werewolf decades ago? Lycanthropy is a thing and some people are really hairy. Those things are vaguely testable evidence. It took decades of engineering advancements befoire the possibility of gathering evidence from CERN was possible. If this is above your pay grade that is alright.

 

[chelseacarlton]

As for my ma, she's not stupid enough to let that influence how she assesses the world.

But what "tactics" are you talking about?

genuinely ... I don't normally take enough notice of this stuff.

Your use of words strung together to formulate a sentence.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Actual unicorns? What did I buy my daughter then if it wasn't an actual unicorn? Am I hallucinating it? Its been a while sinse I've had mushrooms.

AS for my actual point... what is the difference between God and the Higgs Boson? Not literally but in terms of your criteria about what is evidence and what isn't? How is it any less ridiculous than a werewolf decades ago? Lycanthropy is a thing and some people are really hairy. Those things are vaguely testable evidence. It took decades of engineering advancements befoire the possibility of gathering evidence from CERN was possible. If this is above your pay grade that is alright.

Playing silly little semantic philosophical games you like to I see.
It’s above your pay grade too friend, don’t kid yourself.
Just because someone called the Higgs “the god particle”, does not empower the god existence hypothesis.
You’re all over the place.

 

[ferball]

Playing silly little semantic philosophical games you like to I see.
It’s above your pay grade too friend, don’t kid yourself.
Just because someone called the Higgs “the god particle”, does not empower the god existence hypothesis.
You’re all over the place.

Dude someone said this:

Why does proof of evolution disprove the existence of a creator?

And you said this:

Because you haven’t provided evidence that the universe or life requires a creator, nor have you come to terms that Trump won’t be inaugurated again.

Which is meaningless and illogical.

There is no relationship between proof of evolution and disproof of God. Lack of necessity is not proof. Its lack of necessity.

You are using flawed logic. Like saying playing cricket disproves the existence of the Simpsons. There is no logical basis for it. So effectively there is no difference between what you said and what some fundy says.

Its not a silly little semantic game. Semantics is important because its concerned with what words mean.

Furthermore Trump may well be inaugurated again. Not this time but afaik there is nothing to stop him running again in 2024 and since nothing has really changed in the US, nothing will under this version of the demopublicans and half the countyr doesn't believe COVID is real then there is a chance he'll run again on the same platform with the Campaign essentially saying "See I told you so" and get reelected.

 

[ferball]

Anyway Merry Christmas.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Anyway Merry Christmas.

Happy Saturnalia and Yuletide is the correct terminology.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Dude someone said this:

Why does proof of evolution disprove the existence of a creator?

And you said this:

Because you haven’t provided evidence that the universe or life requires a creator, nor have you come to terms that Trump won’t be inaugurated again.

Which is meaningless and illogical.

There is no relationship between proof of evolution and disproof of God. Lack of necessity is not proof. Its lack of necessity.

You are using flawed logic. Like saying playing cricket disproves the existence of the Simpsons. There is no logical basis for it. So effectively there is no difference between what you said and what some fundy says.

Its not a silly little semantic game. Semantics is important because its concerned with what words mean.

Furthermore Trump may well be inaugurated again. Not this time but afaik there is nothing to stop him running again in 2024 and since nothing has really changed in the US, nothing will under this version of the demopublicans and half the countyr doesn't believe COVID is real then there is a chance he'll run again on the same platform with the Campaign essentially saying "See I told you so" and get reelected.

Evolution destroys all ideas of god as they are written in their “special holy texts” in forms of religion.
Every single one.
It’s really that simple.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Evolution destroys all ideas of god as they are written in their “special holy texts” in forms of religion.
Every single one.
It’s really that simple.

/thread

 

[Chief]

Playing silly little semantic philosophical games you like to I see.
It’s above your pay grade too friend, don’t kid yourself.
Just because someone called the Higgs “the god particle”, does not empower the god existence hypothesis.
You’re all over the place.

Can you chill out a bit?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Can you chill out a bit?

Here you go for some chill.

What is the relationship between evolution and intelligence?

As humans, it's hard to escape from our mechanisms and timeframes for what we consider as 'intelligence'. We consciously and quickly make problem solving decisions based on what we think is evidence. To what end?

Could it be that we are not as rational as we like to think we are? But with our big brains, we rationalise our instinctive behaviour as directed by our genes?

Could natural selection be considered a slower form of intelligence and problem solving, with the same ends? It's not what we would consider conscious, but adaption to the environment can win out over consciousness whether it acts for the survival of a species or destruction over another species.

Another non-human facet of intelligence is by lower life forms. When faced with a problem such as extending its underground network a fungus will explore all possibilities before deciding on the most efficient path - almost like a quantum computer. It is slower than a computer of course but its strategy works and fungus will probably exist on the earth long after humans.

 

[Snake_Baker]

At an evolutionary level, "intelligence" would be viewed as behavioural adaptation.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Is it true that Darwin's Finches were classified as different species based on the size of their beaks?

Seems hard to believe.

 

[ferball]

Happy Saturnalia and Yuletide is the correct terminology.

So long as you have a good time with your friends or family its all good.

 

[ferball]

Here you go for some chill.

What is the relationship between evolution and intelligence?

As humans, it's hard to escape from our mechanisms and timeframes for what we consider as 'intelligence'. We consciously and quickly make problem solving decisions based on what we think is evidence. To what end?

Could it be that we are not as rational as we like to think we are? But with our big brains, we rationalise our instinctive behaviour as directed by our genes?

Could natural selection be considered a slower form of intelligence and problem solving, with the same ends? It's not what we would consider conscious, but adaption to the environment can win out over consciousness whether it acts for the survival of a species or destruction over another species.

Another non-human facet of intelligence is by lower life forms. When faced with a problem such as extending its underground network a fungus will explore all possibilities before deciding on the most efficient path - almost like a quantum computer. It is slower than a computer of course but its strategy works and fungus will probably exist on the earth long after humans.

How many of (what we think are) our conscious decisions are unconscious?

A major point of any training - footy, music, martial arts for example - is to make your technique or the implementation of it, unconscious. Remember when you had to think about how to drop the ball or hit it with a fist to handball? Maybe not if you're old enough, but it didn't take long before you did it without thinking about it. It became unconscious and at that point your conscious mind was able to start placing the skill you spent that time learning in a context.

Alot of what you said is very interesting and will give me something to think about over a glass of Scotch later.

Despite what a certain poster thinks if I was to be religious about something (other than being alive) it would be DNA. At some point all life had a common ancestor (most likely) and from that point on (even earlier technically,) there is a direct unbroken chain to you and I thru hundreds of millions of years and who knows how many different species. In every single cell of ours ... this thing is there. All of our so called intelligence is a function of it.

 

[ferball]

Evolution destroys all ideas of god as they are written in their “special holy texts” in forms of religion.
Every single one.
It’s really that simple.

How?

As an aside, tho it is related. How would you respond if I told you there is probably no such thing as objective reality? It might be Bill Hicks was right, it really is just a ride.

One way to find out I guess...

Did you know there is probably no such thing as objective reality?

 

[chelseacarlton]

How?

As an aside, tho it is related. How would you respond if I told you there is probably no such thing as objective reality? It might be Bill Hicks was right, it really is just a ride.

One way to find out I guess...

Did you know there is probably no such thing as objective reality?

Because, everything claimed in almost every so called “holy book” about the reality of our relationship to the universe and who we are has been falsified by our knowledge using only one method.
The Scientific Method.

Objective reality is an interesting and important area of speculation for our species.
Here’s my issue with your assertion though, if we don’t treat it with the knowledge we currently have available to us and simply dismiss it as though there is something else at work, you are a fool.
Gather every single human that has ever lived, take them to the highest building and ask them to jump, the same thing will happen every time, to expect something else to occur apart what we understand of our objective reality in accordance to the very fabric that makes up our universe is utterly ridiculous and gutter slime.
I don’t wish that you tell me objective reality isn’t what I, or what we all understand it to be, I want you to show me the alternative.

 

[Frank Bunn]

How many of (what we think are) our conscious decisions are unconscious?

A major point of any training - footy, music, martial arts for example - is to make your technique or the implementation of it, unconscious. Remember when you had to think about how to drop the ball or hit it with a fist to handball? Maybe not if you're old enough, but it didn't take long before you did it without thinking about it. It became unconscious and at that point your conscious mind was able to start placing the skill you spent that time learning in a context.

Alot of what you said is very interesting and will give me something to think about over a glass of Scotch later.

Despite what a certain poster thinks if I was to be religious about something (other than being alive) it would be DNA. At some point all life had a common ancestor (most likely) and from that point on (even earlier technically,) there is a direct unbroken chain to you and I thru hundreds of millions of years and who knows how many different species. In every single cell of ours ... this thing is there. All of our so called intelligence is a function of it.

It's hard to quantify how many of our decisions are conscious vs unconscious. But there is a lot of evidence of human irrationality.

For example, we have a strong urge to appear to be consistent. Once a person has taken a stand on something they will undergo all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify subsequent behaviour that is consistent with that stand. It has been shown that gamblers are more confident in their choice after they have placed their bet. It explains Ford vs Holden, blind loyalty to a football team, the terrible acts done by otherwise peaceful folk during warfare. Brainwashing works by getting the subject to state a tiny thing in the direction you want them to go - then build on that eg 'it's a good thing that there's no unemployment in the Soviet Union' --> 'the Communist system is good in some respects' etc.

Most sales techniques and political campaigns are based on people's irrationality in one way or another. The tallest candidate in US elections tends to win!

The placebo effect can be very powerful. A sugar pill can sometimes work as well as the pill with the active drug. Name brands can be more effective than identical but generically packaged drugs. Strangely this phenomenon works even after people have been informed of these facts.

I wonder how many children are conceived due to a conscious decision vs two people being horny, drunk or both.

Hypnosis is interesting. Even after coming out of the immediate hypnotic state the subject's unconscious mind can be in control - with the conscious mind rationalising how they now have 9 fingers or have had a gastric band fitted.

Aspects of human irrationality might be an evolutionary adaption. We have evolved to survive and reproduce, not necessarily to make logical decisions.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Because, everything claimed in almost every so called “holy book” about the reality of our relationship to the universe and who we are has been falsified by our knowledge using only one method.
The Scientific Method.

Objective reality is an interesting and important area of speculation for our species.
Here’s my issue with your assertion though, if we don’t treat it with the knowledge we currently have available to us and simply dismiss it as though there is something else at work, you are a fool.
Gather every single human that has ever lived, take them to the highest building and ask them to jump, the same thing will happen every time, to expect something else to occur apart what we understand of our objective reality in accordance to the very fabric that makes up our universe is utterly ridiculous and gutter slime.
I don’t wish that you tell me objective reality isn’t what I, or what we all understand it to be, I want you to show me the alternative.

A few things spring to mind.

A proponent of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics might dispute what would happen if you jumped off a tall building. The theory implies that there are very many universes, perhaps infinitely many. Hugh Everett, who first proposed the theory believed in Quantum Immortality. So there would exist many, possibly infinitely many, universes where you would survive the jump. There have been several recorded cases of people falling long distances and surviving. Everett didn't put all his money on red then jump off a building but he lived like he might be immortal - smoking 3 packs a day, drank like a fish and was obese. Then he died from a heart attack at the age of 51. Oops! Or is he still alive in other universes?

Is the Scientific Method bringing us closer to observing reality or merely building more sophisticated, internally consistent models that make useful predictions?

Stephen Hawking.

We seem to be at a critical point in the history of science, in which we must alter our conception of goals and of what makes a physical theory acceptable. It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle. The parameters are free to take on many values and the laws to take on any form that leads to a self-consistent mathematical theory, and they do take on different values and different forms in different universes.​

You didn't define what you mean by objective reality so that someone might provide an alternative.

 

[ferball]

Objective reality is an interesting and important area of speculation for our species.
Here’s my issue with your assertion though, if we don’t treat it with the knowledge we currently have available to us and simply dismiss it as though there is something else at work, you are a fool.
Gather every single human that has ever lived, take them to the highest building and ask them to jump, the same thing will happen every time, to expect something else to occur apart what we understand of our objective reality in accordance to the very fabric that makes up our universe is utterly ridiculous and gutter slime.
I don’t wish that you tell me objective reality isn’t what I, or what we all understand it to be, I want you to show me the alternative.

The same thing won't happen. You aren't taking into account that some people will jump and some won't. The same person might do both things at different points in their life. And leaving aside the effect of mental illness ... there is footage from WW2 of Jewish people lining up to be shot, mildly, acquiescing to the fact they were about to be murdered by scum and yet they did nothing to resist. The Stanford Prison Experiment showed people will obey authority far beyond the point of reason. As do incidents like Jonestown or Heavens Gate.

Experimental test of local observer-independence

The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics, the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most dramatically exposed in Eugene Wigner's eponymous thought experiment where...

arxiv.org

The abstract:

The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them. In quantum mechanics, the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most dramatically exposed in Eugene Wigner's eponymous thought experiment where two observers can experience seemingly different realities. The question whether these realities can be reconciled in an observer-independent way has long remained inaccessible to empirical investigation, until recent no-go-theorems constructed an extended Wigner's friend scenario with four observers that allows us to put it to the test. In a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, we realise this extended Wigner's friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by 5 standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free-choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way.

Ie the implication is quantum physics, the most accurate description for reality we have yet been able to develop, is subjective.

The theoretical basis for this has been bobbing around the edges of quantum physics for half a century or so but its a fundamentally challenging concept. Wigner's friend is a thought experiment that was once thought impossible to resolve experimentally but these days ... we have the technology.

So if locality (ie the lack of esp/telekinesis) and free choice exists the realities we observe will be different from each other on a subatomic level.

(This is shown by your unfathomable belief that the Blues are somehow a worthy footy team. Its obviously true to you but alot of us just laugh at the idea.)

Because, everything claimed in almost every so called “holy book” about the reality of our relationship to the universe and who we are has been falsified by our knowledge using only one method.
The Scientific Method.

Everything in almost every book?

What about the four noble truths of Buddhism? When did Scientific Method falsify that?

Lets look at the Big Bang.

The Bible says Creation starts with "Let there be Light". So an explosion out of nothing would fit that. The Vayu Purana describes creation as beginning with nothing, having no describable qualities and appearing due to some sort of disturbances. Current theory uses the term "quantum fluctuations".

Both of those things are not at odds with current theories on the origin of the universe. Ergo Scientific Method has not falsified that aspect of those holy books' claims about our relationship to the universe.

 

[Total Power]

I think whether science can 'prove' something or not is a notoriously misused and misunderstood concept from both sides of the argument.

The purpose of science is to build a logically consistent framework useful in modeling the universe/natural things. Describing something logically consistent within its framework doesn't necessarily mean it is a physical phenomena or even happens. It simply means it is not contradicted by our body of knowledge.

You could say it only proves things to itself, so long as you accept the logical axioms which have been described from observation.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein