Thoughts and prayers for Paris, France.

[gene]

I can't believe this conversation still continues, and I can't believe I'm still reading it. I guess it beats the latest bi-amp or bi-wire thread.
Evolution is not a fact in the sense that it can be easily confirmed by direct observation with our unaided senses. In the same thinking, an electron is not a simple fact. We cannot observe a single electron. It is an idea (more formally, it's a theoretical construct) that explains observable electrical behavior rather well.

If we had a DeLorian equipped with all the options, we could travel back and forth in time, and we might be able to directly observe evolution happening. Just the same, animals and plants have clearly changed over time. We have constructed an idea, Evolution & Natural Selection, to explain how this happens. So far, it works rather well to explain things. Natural Selection is alive and well today. Just ask yourself how ISIS's model of suicide/terrorism can be expected to take over the world if they can't out survive those who they wish to defeat. (See how evolution and the Paris terrorist attacks are related.)

I am only playing the smartass editor here . Evolution is not a fact, but it is a very widely accepted explanation for what we can observe. I have never met an honest scientist denies it.

We meet many more people why claim bi-wiring is a benefit when there is no evidence to support them. I guess I'd rather argue with Evolution non-believers than with bi-wire guys.

I guess it depends on semantics but its beyond just a theory since we can observe it happening in real time with viruses and simple organisms plus we have plenty of fossil evidence of more complex lifeforms as well.

see: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

[markw]

I'm confused as to why you think I stated otherwise. Evolution only shows a process. The origin of life is still an unknown and why faith and science can and should still co-exist.

you, like many people, seem to confuse creation with evolution. I agree there is a difference but many people seem to think that those that believe in creation disagree with evolution. That's a pretty broad brush you paint with and not necessarily the case.

As I asked earlier, has anyone read "The Sirens of Titan"? Obviously not.

 

[Swerd]

I guess it depends on semantics but its beyond just a theory since we can observe it happening in real time with viruses and simple organisms plus we have plenty of fossil evidence of more complex lifeforms as well.

You'll get no argument from me about that.

I was only looking for a round-about way to connect Arab Terrorism with Evolution.

Some scientists will argue that a virus is not a true living organism. They cannot perform basic biological functions such as carbon metabolism, respiration, or reproduction on their own. They must high-jack a living cell to do that.

 

[Swerd]

As I asked earlier, has anyone read "The Sirens of Titan"? Obviously not.

I did read that quite a long time ago, in the 60s when Kurt Vonnegut was popular. Is that where the guy was kidnapped by aliens and kept in a zoo? I don't remember much else.

I remember Cat's Cradle better. Ice Nine?

 

[Irvrobinson]

Evolution is not a fact in the sense that it can be easily confirmed by direct observation with our unaided senses.

Not observable? How do you think MRSA bacteria was created?

 

[Swerd]

Not observable? How do you think MRSA bacteria was created?

Now you're getting all literal with me.

Of course, anyone in a lab can start with antibiotic sensitive bacteria and generate antibiotic resistant bacteria overnight. That's an easy demonstration. And it certainly wouldn't be possible without understanding the concept of natural selection. But doing this doesn't allow us to observe the first time this happened in the wild.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Now you're getting all literal with me.

Of course, anyone in a lab can start with antibiotic sensitive bacteria and generate antibiotic resistant bacteria overnight. That's an easy demonstration. And it certainly wouldn't be possible without understanding the concept of natural selection. But doing this doesn't allow us to observe the first time this happened in the wild.

You're just being difficult. (Some people, well, okay, a lot of people, would say I deserve a taste of my own medicine, but to hell with them.) No one here said that any particular proof point was sufficient to show that evolution was the underlying reason for the changes in species over millions of years, but it is proof that evolution does, in fact, occur. You can observe it anytime you want to run an experiment. And that's why Evolution (with a capital E) is called a scientific theory, because trying to explain the history of life on Earth will always be based on theory and supporting evidence rather than observation, but the fact that evolution exists and works as a process is a fact.

 

[Swerd]

You're just being difficult. (Some people, well, okay, a lot of people, would say I deserve a taste of my own medicine, but to hell with them.) No one here said that any particular proof point was sufficient to show that evolution was the underlying reason for the changes in species over millions of years, but it is proof that evolution does, in fact, occur. You can observe it anytime you want to run an experiment. And that's why Evolution (with a capital E) is called a scientific theory, because trying to explain the history of life on Earth will always be based on theory and supporting evidence rather than observation, but the fact that evolution exists and works as a process is a fact.

Yes, I am being difficult. Guilty as charged .

But I'm getting even for the time many years ago, as a grad student, when I got my knuckles rapped because I used the word "prove" casually around other scientists.

One can never prove anything by demonstrating that it can happen, even if it's a convincingly good demonstration. You can disprove something by demonstrating that it cannot happen. But to prove a scientific idea, such as Evolution, takes many people and many years. After many years, no one has demonstrated that Evolution cannot happen, therefore, by default, it approaches proof. That's as good as it gets.

I now run into scientists who often use the term "Proof-of-Principle" when they really mean "demonstrate". I think its sloppy language that suggests sloppy thinking, but I'm getting old.

 

[Chu Gai]

Yes proof of Jesus being real and a deity is EXACTLY the same as proving the Holocaust happened except the we have actual tangible evidence, video footage and living eyewitnesses of the later as opposed to parables written 100s of years after the alleged death of Jesus in a book that's been translated countless times over generations.

So there's a chance he's alive?

 

[haraldo]

As this thread turned into a physics discussion....

There's just one issue of general relativity that I can't get into my head.....

We're living in an ever expanding universe and as a consequence of this the arrow of time dictates that everything in the universe goes from an orderly state to less orderly... This means for instance that traffic in Rome is constantly getting worse, if you make a castle in the sand, the forces of the universe (the wind) will make it less ordered, which means the grains of sand eventually will be put into a random order. This goes for the stars, quasars, neutron stars, galaxies, all objects.... Eventually there will only be black dwarfs and black holes left and no burning stars... In the end the black dwarfs will evaporate and in the end even the black holes will evaporate. It will take a while though, something like a gogool years = 10^100 years. (The number of atoms in the universe = approx 10^80).
However, it is no escape from the faith that in the end the universe will be completely uniform with nothing left in the end, not even atoms, as they all will evaporate into nothingness...

Now the difficult part comes in as explained by Stephen B. Hawking in the book "A brief history of time"
If the universe should stop expanding and start contracting, the arrow of time will be reversed, space time will be reversed, and that also means that time will start going backwards. The whole space-time continuum will go completely haywire, even the Italian traffic will seemingly be in a harmony compared to the turmoil that would be...

So if the universe stops expanding and start contracting it will be like this:
- Time will start going backwards
- We will remember tomorrow instead of yesterday
- If I remember correctly gravity will be reversed and things start falling upwards from the surface of earth

This is not a joke but the consequences of general relativity, all according to Stephen B. Hawking

This is something that is beyond the grasp of what I can manage to understand, anyone else that can explain this to me?

And... we better hope that the universe will still be expanding

 

[haraldo]

.... when forced to confront the reality that we share about 99% of our DNA with a chimp. ....

According to Carl Sagan, if I remember correctly, we are more than 94% similar to an oak tree

 

[Swerd]

So there's a chance he's alive?

If he's alive, would somebody please get a DNA sample? People have argued interminably whether immaculate conception could have happened.

A simple chromosome count would settle the question once and for all.

Haploid – conception was indeed imaculate

Diploid – well, never mind

 

[crossedover]

like this thread.....

 

[GO-NAD!]

Yes proof of Jesus being real and a deity is EXACTLY the same as proving the Holocaust happened except the we have actual tangible evidence, video footage and living eyewitnesses of the later as opposed to parables written 100s of years after the alleged death of Jesus in a book that's been translated countless times over generations.

I believe there's a consensus amongst scholars that Jesus was a real person. The deity question generates a bit more debate. In fact, many Christians don't believe he is/was a literal deity, or that he was born of a virgin.

And, regarding Bible translations; they weren't all sourced from a preceding version, leading to complete corruption of the authors' original message. Some recent translations come from the original texts, or as close to original as possible. Of course, the authors wrote truth as they saw it in their time, so a thinking person today shouldn't accept it as literally true for our time. But, there is timeless wisdom to be found there.

 

[avliner]

...Of course, the authors wrote truth as they saw it in their time, so a thinking person today shouldn't accept it as literally true for our time. But, there is timeless wisdom to be found there.

I totally agree with you on the above, but...who could really affirm that the very same didn't happened with the translation of the Holy Kur'am way back when?? AFIIK, Christians are not at all blasting themselves for a radical cause, are they?

 

[crossedover]

I totally agree with you on the above, but...who could really affirm that the very same didn't happened with the translation of the Holy Kur'am way back when?? AFIIK, Christians are not at all blasting themselves for a radical cause, are they?

Not often, but maybe the first http://news.sky.com/story/357924/suicide-bombing-the-first-was-a-christian

 

[avliner]

^^
If the above is truth, I can only say: Holy S***!!

 

[haraldo]

About the reversal of the arrow of time in a contracting universe.
I understand Stephen Hawking changed his mind on this saying he was wrong....
(As stated in The Beginning of Time)

 

[gene]

you, like many people, seem to confuse creation with evolution. I agree there is a difference but many people seem to think that those that believe in creation disagree with evolution. That's a pretty broad brush you paint with and not necessarily the case.

As I asked earlier, has anyone read "The Sirens of Titan"? Obviously not.

Your presumptions about me are interesting. I actually don't confuse the two. I am comfortable separating them and acknowledging we don't have all the answers. Not even close. Science can only take us so far now and likely in the future too.

I was raised a Catholic and although I am not evangelical, I do respect and honor the teachings I learned in my youth. To lack faith in a higher power means you don't believe you have a soul and that is not something that sits well with me at all.

IN any event, good discussion and NO I have not read that book. Sadly my time these days don't allow luxury reading...

 

[haraldo]

Not often, but maybe the first http://news.sky.com/story/357924/suicide-bombing-the-first-was-a-christian

So what?