(no subject)
soccern514 (1:27:33 AM): on a different note
soccern514 (1:27:40 AM): did you ever see the movie Expelled
toxicsmutmulch (1:27:52 AM): nope
soccern514 (1:27:59 AM): know about it?>\
toxicsmutmulch (1:28:09 AM): somewhat
soccern514 (1:28:22 AM): russ and i went to see it
soccern514 (1:28:25 AM): i enjoyed it
toxicsmutmulch (1:29:30 AM): de gustibus non est disputandum
soccern514 (1:30:21 AM): what
toxicsmutmulch (1:30:45 AM): roughly, "you can't argue with taste"
soccern514 (1:31:25 AM): well strictly from a scientific standpoint, i think they have a valid and fair argument
toxicsmutmulch (1:31:48 AM): eh, strictly from a scientific viewpoint, they've got jack
soccern514 (1:32:07 AM): how so
toxicsmutmulch (1:32:33 AM): first of all, disclaimer:
toxicsmutmulch (1:34:14 AM): it's 0030, and I find this issue generally tiresome. I am reasonably well acquainted with it, since I find evolutionary biology fascinating. but I'm reasonably certain I'll get tired of arguing about this quickly...
soccern514 (1:34:54 AM): i wasn't going to argue about evolution
soccern514 (1:35:20 AM): just the fact that its wrong that they're being persecuted for losing their jobs for holding a different view
toxicsmutmulch (1:35:37 AM): it depends.
toxicsmutmulch (1:36:31 AM): most of the people mentioned had jobs in academia. being vocally unscientific is good reason not to be employed as a scientist
toxicsmutmulch (1:37:41 AM): secondly, while I have no personal knowledge of any of the situations which were described, I would advise looking at the actual details from (if one is possible) an unbaised source. I've heard some credible sources say that the stories were hgihly exaggerated
soccern514 (1:38:35 AM): yeah...but i dont know if that would be possible
toxicsmutmulch (1:39:02 AM): thirdly: Godwin's law. anyone who so blatantly ignores it loses essentially all credibility in my eyes.
soccern514 (1:40:42 AM): meaning they shouldn't compare it to the nazis?
toxicsmutmulch (1:41:31 AM): basically. it's a cheap, emotional, completely offtopic comparison
soccern514 (1:42:38 AM): hmm
soccern514 (1:43:05 AM): what about just pointing out the similarities of natural selection and some of the things hitler did?
toxicsmutmulch (1:43:32 AM): could be valid on its face, but remember not to slip into reduction as hitlerum
toxicsmutmulch (1:43:49 AM): hitler was a vegatarian, therefor vegetarianism is wrong
soccern514 (1:43:53 AM): (im just asking cuz im not familiar with Godwin's law)
toxicsmutmulch (1:44:02 AM): wow I butchered the latin
toxicsmutmulch (1:44:16 AM): here
toxicsmutmulch (1:44:20 AM): I can't type tonight
toxicsmutmulch (1:45:10 AM): with the side note that it really doen't seem like the nazis cared about evolutionary biology that much
soccern514 (1:45:42 AM): would that mean bringing Hitler into any argument(not just this one) lose all credibility?
toxicsmutmulch (1:46:04 AM): depends on how he's brought in
toxicsmutmulch (1:46:30 AM): but usually, yeah. there's not a whole lot that's actually comparable
soccern514 (1:47:09 AM): its been several weeks but basically i just remember how they were trying to force/copy natural selection by eliminating weaker races
toxicsmutmulch (1:48:05 AM): sounds about right. but why would this imply anything about the validity of the scientific idea?
soccern514 (1:48:49 AM): i dont remember how it was brought in
soccern514 (1:49:16 AM): i'll admit that did play with my emotions, but thats not what swayed me one particular way in the movie
soccern514 (1:49:18 AM): let me ask you this
soccern514 (1:49:27 AM): excluding the situations in the movie
soccern514 (1:49:37 AM): since theres no way i can prove the validity of them
soccern514 (1:50:31 AM): do you think that creative design is a valid scientific argument/theory and should not be overshadowed/forced out/silenced by evolutionary theory
soccern514 (1:51:24 AM): i mean, they're technically both theories, so shouldn't they both be taught?
toxicsmutmulch (1:51:46 AM): would you mind defining what "theory" means to you?
soccern514 (1:52:41 AM): well its not a law, or set in stone scientific fact, there are still many wholes, so they should be questioned
soccern514 (1:52:49 AM): hooooles**
soccern514 (1:52:53 AM): spelling is fun
toxicsmutmulch (1:53:39 AM): kay. that's significantly different from standard scientific terminology
toxicsmutmulch (1:54:39 AM): first of all, theory and law get used in science a lot of times rather fuzzily, beacsue some idea or another has been called by a particular name for so long. so don't just go by the title of anything.
soccern514 (1:54:59 AM): would hypothesis be more accurate?
toxicsmutmulch (1:55:19 AM): actually, theory is a good word for evolution in this case
toxicsmutmulch (1:55:26 AM): but I wasnted the disclaimer
toxicsmutmulch (1:56:35 AM): the theory of universal gravitation is much more what you would call a law, for instance. it's a (usually mathematical) description of observations that are universally consistant
toxicsmutmulch (1:57:11 AM): kepler's laws, kirchoff's laws, things like that
toxicsmutmulch (1:57:36 AM): you can write them out with algebra, but all they are is saying "this is how we always observe these processes occurring"
soccern514 (1:57:52 AM): well i was using the term theory for what it generally means
soccern514 (1:58:02 AM): even though its in the name of some things that are basically law
soccern514 (1:58:04 AM): like gravity
toxicsmutmulch (1:58:20 AM): yeah, but like I said, that's called a theory but only because of tradition. it's a law
soccern514 (1:58:45 AM): ha, prove it!
soccern514 (1:58:52 AM):
toxicsmutmulch (1:58:54 AM): an idea isn't a theory because it's any less supported than a law, it's just a different sort of statement
toxicsmutmulch (1:59:03 AM): I don't need to prove it, it's a definintion.....
soccern514 (1:59:18 AM): no i meant that gravity was a law
toxicsmutmulch (1:59:53 AM): exactly
toxicsmutmulch (2:00:01 AM): F=Gmm/r^2
toxicsmutmulch (2:00:29 AM): is a mathematical formula that is supported by basically every observation we make of things moving in space
toxicsmutmulch (2:00:42 AM): which is the normal definition of a law
toxicsmutmulch (2:02:05 AM): a theory is something broader and fuzzier. it's an explanatory framework. it doesn't just say what the observations are, it makes inferences and predictions.
soccern514 (2:02:31 AM): like a hypothesis
toxicsmutmulch (2:03:24 AM): hypothesis is even more specific, it's a guess (usually arrived at by thinking through the predictions a theory makes) as to the outcome of a specific experiment
toxicsmutmulch (2:04:42 AM): quantum theory, for instance, is more than a record of how particles interact. its a huge set of (mostly mathematical) ideas about what particles are, and it makes predictions as to how they will respond in situations we haven't measured
soccern514 (2:05:37 AM): which is why particle accelerators exist?
soccern514 (2:06:12 AM): you can say yes or no and not have to explain it if its a no
soccern514 (2:06:18 AM): thats a rabbit trail
toxicsmutmulch (2:06:32 AM): exactly right
toxicsmutmulch (2:07:11 AM): evolutionary theory starts with observations (environmental pressures determine what organisms survive to reproduce, parents pass traits on to offspring, fossil records show a (relatively) gradual change in what sorts of organisms were present on earth over time).
toxicsmutmulch (2:09:12 AM): and from those obseervations draws conclusions (the observed changes in form and lifestyle happened because only the organisms best adapted to survive passed on their genetic information. hundreds of millions of years of mutation and selection caused the biodiversity we see today)
toxicsmutmulch (2:11:23 AM): and makes predictions (the closer two species are related, the more geneitc information they'll share, we should look for fossils of certain intermediate organisms in certain strata, bacteria will keep getting resistant if we don't take all our antibiotics)
soccern514 (2:12:04 AM): what about the gap in the fossil record
toxicsmutmulch (2:12:20 AM): there actually keep getting more and more gaps
soccern514 (2:12:33 AM): thats encouraging
toxicsmutmulch (2:12:42 AM): because if you take two organisms, and find one that was between them, that leaves two gaps where there usd to be one
toxicsmutmulch (2:12:45 AM): right?
soccern514 (2:13:01 AM): yeah
toxicsmutmulch (2:13:24 AM): so counting gaps is a bad way of trying to discredit evolution....
toxicsmutmulch (2:14:16 AM): but a lot of the interesting gaps are small enough that you can see how things must have transpired over millions of years
soccern514 (2:14:32 AM): well not just counting gaps, but the really big ones
toxicsmutmulch (2:14:52 AM): there really aren't many of those
toxicsmutmulch (2:16:04 AM): I won't ask you to think of one off the top of your head, but the thing is that big gaps mean room for discovery, which means lots of paleontologists eager to get something named after them. so the gaps don't persist long
toxicsmutmulch (2:17:14 AM): there's a good exhibit on that at the natural history museum here. cetacean evolution. paleontologists looked a long time ago and saw that some structures were very similar between certain extinct types of quadrupeds and whales. that gave them a place to look, and lots of intermediate forms were discovered
soccern514 (2:17:20 AM): ok, well....supposing all that is true then
soccern514 (2:17:25 AM): what about the ultimate question
toxicsmutmulch (2:17:43 AM): ?42
soccern514 (2:17:44 AM): back humans up all the way to the very first atom, they still can't answer where that came from
soccern514 (2:17:48 AM): yes 42
soccern514 (2:18:52 AM): humans to apes all the way to cynobacteria encloses elements in membranes, to the elements to the first atoms
toxicsmutmulch (2:18:57 AM): first of all, it depends. there's some really interesting cosmological research going into how the universe originated. mostly over my head, but it's pretty solid math
toxicsmutmulch (2:19:44 AM): but evolutionary biolgy really only deals with the biology.
soccern514 (2:20:01 AM): yeah, but what i dont like is that people say that it is where life came from
toxicsmutmulch (2:20:03 AM): there's some work going on modeling self arrangement of early biological molecules
toxicsmutmulch (2:20:12 AM): its a common mistake
soccern514 (2:20:22 AM): its possibly how it has changed, but not originated
toxicsmutmulch (2:20:38 AM): evolution really deals with the changes that occurr to life. where it came from is a different issue, but still one science deals with
toxicsmutmulch (2:20:42 AM): yes
soccern514 (2:21:09 AM): ok, well do you think creative design is a valid argument then
soccern514 (2:21:24 AM): or should it not be compared because it more deals with origin
soccern514 (2:21:25 AM): and not change
toxicsmutmulch (2:21:30 AM): valid argument? sure, why not? it's not scientific
soccern514 (2:21:39 AM): scientific argument
toxicsmutmulch (2:22:21 AM): there's scientific ideas it can be compared to, but I wouldn't it's an inherently nonscientific arguement
toxicsmutmulch (2:23:14 AM): would you mind defining "creative design" for me so I can know what Im talking about?
soccern514 (2:23:25 AM): would it not be scientific to study life and see that the more complex we find out things are, the more unlikely that it could all be chance?
soccern514 (2:24:42 AM): well for me personally it would be the christian God, but i know if i mention that i'll get the label "CREATIONIST!!!" stamped onto my forehead, so just being scientific intellegent design....thats the term ive been meaning to use..not creative
soccern514 (2:25:25 AM): some higher superior being designing and creating
toxicsmutmulch (2:28:34 AM): hmmm. not entirely helpful, but I'll go with it. yes, it's possible to imagine observations which would make science change the way it thinks about life and its origins, but postulating a god of any sort would likely not be the road taken. if we see things we don't expect, we look for a mechanism and attempt to discover how it works. it's unlikely sceintists would just throw up their hands and say "it's magic"
toxicsmutmulch (2:29:20 AM): but the thing is, the observations made just reinforce the scientific viewpoint. things are complex, but they're complex in predictable ways
soccern514 (2:31:24 AM): well its never going to be possible though to prove or disprove God by science though
toxicsmutmulch (2:31:37 AM): no one sees raw elements automatically arrange themselves into complex organisms in a petri dish, that'd be something that would make us reconsider everytihng. instead, we see complexity built from individually self-replicating bits, that are incredibly versatile and changeable
toxicsmutmulch (2:32:43 AM): depends. there is no set of observations which can rule out a god, just like there is none that could rule out solipcism (the idea that you are the only thing that exists and everything else is in your head. think The Matrix)
toxicsmutmulch (2:33:05 AM): there are plenty of observations that disprove the more naive ideas of God
toxicsmutmulch (2:33:50 AM): God does not reliably grant prayers, for instance.
soccern514 (2:34:25 AM): just because it isnt always a yes?
toxicsmutmulch (2:34:49 AM): yes. I did say it was a naive idea. but it's one plenty of people have had throughout history
soccern514 (2:35:23 AM): maybe people need a bigger idea of God, He isn't some magic genie there to grant every wish
soccern514 (2:35:33 AM): that would lead to chaos
toxicsmutmulch (2:35:53 AM): if he created the world 6000 years ago with everytihng in its current form, he did an awful lot of covering up to make the world look old. this doesn't rule him or her out completely, just rules out a direct and unsubtle god
toxicsmutmulch (2:35:59 AM): yes
soccern514 (2:36:57 AM): i always heard 10000, but theres a bunch of old earth/new earth theologies that i havent studied much, because frankly i dont see it as a major doctrine
toxicsmutmulch (2:37:04 AM): nor I
soccern514 (2:37:54 AM): the reason why i love my major, and like science, is the more i study
soccern514 (2:38:00 AM): the more i see God's handiwork in it
soccern514 (2:38:05 AM): and see his wisdom
soccern514 (2:38:07 AM): and i love that
toxicsmutmulch (2:38:38 AM): oh, I completely agree. the natural world is a wonderful palce to learn about God
toxicsmutmulch (2:39:31 AM): anyway, I reall need to go to bed
soccern514 (2:39:38 AM): wait
soccern514 (2:39:44 AM): one quick question
soccern514 (2:39:49 AM): this one isnt science
soccern514 (2:39:54 AM): well...i think science disproves it
soccern514 (2:40:07 AM): whats your opinion on postmodernism?
toxicsmutmulch (2:40:20 AM): *goes to wikipedia*
soccern514 (2:41:07 AM): not architectually
soccern514 (2:41:10 AM): but basically
soccern514 (2:41:17 AM): "there is no absolute truth"
toxicsmutmulch (2:42:08 AM): I consider essentially all overarching philosophical statements like that incoherent
soccern514 (2:42:32 AM): well for one...that can't be true if nothing is true...
toxicsmutmulch (2:42:46 AM): that's why I prefaced it with :i consider"
soccern514 (2:42:51 AM): and two...i think science disproves it...because gravity wouldnt equal 9.81 m/s
soccern514 (2:43:07 AM): if nothing was true...
soccern514 (2:43:25 AM): we have to assume so many things are true to advance
toxicsmutmulch (2:43:25 AM): I think you using a little too much sophistry
soccern514 (2:44:01 AM): no idea what that is
toxicsmutmulch (2:44:48 AM): glib, superfically plausible reasoning
soccern514 (2:45:30 AM): well i dont see how postmodern thinking would work in science
toxicsmutmulch (2:45:32 AM): you arent actually considering what the statement might mean to whoever said it, but rather assigning a silly meaning to it and then arguinig against that
toxicsmutmulch (2:45:36 AM): hehe
soccern514 (2:45:42 AM): is my point
toxicsmutmulch (2:46:59 AM): hang on
toxicsmutmulch (2:49:03 AM): read wikipedia about the sokal affair if you're interested in what a lot of scientists think. I personally am willing to allow that liberal arts folks actually have some idea what they're talking about, even if it's completely inscrutable to me. but in general I don't bother
toxicsmutmulch (2:49:36 AM): anyway, it's bed time
soccern514 (2:49:43 AM): thanks for the talk
toxicsmutmulch (2:49:44 AM): thank you, this did not get tiresome
soccern514 (2:49:47 AM): haha
toxicsmutmulch (2:49:47 AM): good night
toxicsmutmulch signed off at 2:49:50 AM
Peter's 2nd to last line really encouraged me "toxicsmutmulch (2:49:44 AM): thank you, this did not get tiresome"
in the past this would have quickly turned into a prideful argument from my standpoint...
this was an intellegent and peaceful discussion
.
toxicsmutmulch is offline and will receive your IMs when
soccern514 (1:27:40 AM): did you ever see the movie Expelled
toxicsmutmulch (1:27:52 AM): nope
soccern514 (1:27:59 AM): know about it?>\
toxicsmutmulch (1:28:09 AM): somewhat
soccern514 (1:28:22 AM): russ and i went to see it
soccern514 (1:28:25 AM): i enjoyed it
toxicsmutmulch (1:29:30 AM): de gustibus non est disputandum
soccern514 (1:30:21 AM): what
toxicsmutmulch (1:30:45 AM): roughly, "you can't argue with taste"
soccern514 (1:31:25 AM): well strictly from a scientific standpoint, i think they have a valid and fair argument
toxicsmutmulch (1:31:48 AM): eh, strictly from a scientific viewpoint, they've got jack
soccern514 (1:32:07 AM): how so
toxicsmutmulch (1:32:33 AM): first of all, disclaimer:
toxicsmutmulch (1:34:14 AM): it's 0030, and I find this issue generally tiresome. I am reasonably well acquainted with it, since I find evolutionary biology fascinating. but I'm reasonably certain I'll get tired of arguing about this quickly...
soccern514 (1:34:54 AM): i wasn't going to argue about evolution
soccern514 (1:35:20 AM): just the fact that its wrong that they're being persecuted for losing their jobs for holding a different view
toxicsmutmulch (1:35:37 AM): it depends.
toxicsmutmulch (1:36:31 AM): most of the people mentioned had jobs in academia. being vocally unscientific is good reason not to be employed as a scientist
toxicsmutmulch (1:37:41 AM): secondly, while I have no personal knowledge of any of the situations which were described, I would advise looking at the actual details from (if one is possible) an unbaised source. I've heard some credible sources say that the stories were hgihly exaggerated
soccern514 (1:38:35 AM): yeah...but i dont know if that would be possible
toxicsmutmulch (1:39:02 AM): thirdly: Godwin's law. anyone who so blatantly ignores it loses essentially all credibility in my eyes.
soccern514 (1:40:42 AM): meaning they shouldn't compare it to the nazis?
toxicsmutmulch (1:41:31 AM): basically. it's a cheap, emotional, completely offtopic comparison
soccern514 (1:42:38 AM): hmm
soccern514 (1:43:05 AM): what about just pointing out the similarities of natural selection and some of the things hitler did?
toxicsmutmulch (1:43:32 AM): could be valid on its face, but remember not to slip into reduction as hitlerum
toxicsmutmulch (1:43:49 AM): hitler was a vegatarian, therefor vegetarianism is wrong
soccern514 (1:43:53 AM): (im just asking cuz im not familiar with Godwin's law)
toxicsmutmulch (1:44:02 AM): wow I butchered the latin
toxicsmutmulch (1:44:16 AM): here
toxicsmutmulch (1:44:20 AM): I can't type tonight
toxicsmutmulch (1:45:10 AM): with the side note that it really doen't seem like the nazis cared about evolutionary biology that much
soccern514 (1:45:42 AM): would that mean bringing Hitler into any argument(not just this one) lose all credibility?
toxicsmutmulch (1:46:04 AM): depends on how he's brought in
toxicsmutmulch (1:46:30 AM): but usually, yeah. there's not a whole lot that's actually comparable
soccern514 (1:47:09 AM): its been several weeks but basically i just remember how they were trying to force/copy natural selection by eliminating weaker races
toxicsmutmulch (1:48:05 AM): sounds about right. but why would this imply anything about the validity of the scientific idea?
soccern514 (1:48:49 AM): i dont remember how it was brought in
soccern514 (1:49:16 AM): i'll admit that did play with my emotions, but thats not what swayed me one particular way in the movie
soccern514 (1:49:18 AM): let me ask you this
soccern514 (1:49:27 AM): excluding the situations in the movie
soccern514 (1:49:37 AM): since theres no way i can prove the validity of them
soccern514 (1:50:31 AM): do you think that creative design is a valid scientific argument/theory and should not be overshadowed/forced out/silenced by evolutionary theory
soccern514 (1:51:24 AM): i mean, they're technically both theories, so shouldn't they both be taught?
toxicsmutmulch (1:51:46 AM): would you mind defining what "theory" means to you?
soccern514 (1:52:41 AM): well its not a law, or set in stone scientific fact, there are still many wholes, so they should be questioned
soccern514 (1:52:49 AM): hooooles**
soccern514 (1:52:53 AM): spelling is fun
toxicsmutmulch (1:53:39 AM): kay. that's significantly different from standard scientific terminology
toxicsmutmulch (1:54:39 AM): first of all, theory and law get used in science a lot of times rather fuzzily, beacsue some idea or another has been called by a particular name for so long. so don't just go by the title of anything.
soccern514 (1:54:59 AM): would hypothesis be more accurate?
toxicsmutmulch (1:55:19 AM): actually, theory is a good word for evolution in this case
toxicsmutmulch (1:55:26 AM): but I wasnted the disclaimer
toxicsmutmulch (1:56:35 AM): the theory of universal gravitation is much more what you would call a law, for instance. it's a (usually mathematical) description of observations that are universally consistant
toxicsmutmulch (1:57:11 AM): kepler's laws, kirchoff's laws, things like that
toxicsmutmulch (1:57:36 AM): you can write them out with algebra, but all they are is saying "this is how we always observe these processes occurring"
soccern514 (1:57:52 AM): well i was using the term theory for what it generally means
soccern514 (1:58:02 AM): even though its in the name of some things that are basically law
soccern514 (1:58:04 AM): like gravity
toxicsmutmulch (1:58:20 AM): yeah, but like I said, that's called a theory but only because of tradition. it's a law
soccern514 (1:58:45 AM): ha, prove it!
soccern514 (1:58:52 AM):
toxicsmutmulch (1:58:54 AM): an idea isn't a theory because it's any less supported than a law, it's just a different sort of statement
toxicsmutmulch (1:59:03 AM): I don't need to prove it, it's a definintion.....
soccern514 (1:59:18 AM): no i meant that gravity was a law
toxicsmutmulch (1:59:53 AM): exactly
toxicsmutmulch (2:00:01 AM): F=Gmm/r^2
toxicsmutmulch (2:00:29 AM): is a mathematical formula that is supported by basically every observation we make of things moving in space
toxicsmutmulch (2:00:42 AM): which is the normal definition of a law
toxicsmutmulch (2:02:05 AM): a theory is something broader and fuzzier. it's an explanatory framework. it doesn't just say what the observations are, it makes inferences and predictions.
soccern514 (2:02:31 AM): like a hypothesis
toxicsmutmulch (2:03:24 AM): hypothesis is even more specific, it's a guess (usually arrived at by thinking through the predictions a theory makes) as to the outcome of a specific experiment
toxicsmutmulch (2:04:42 AM): quantum theory, for instance, is more than a record of how particles interact. its a huge set of (mostly mathematical) ideas about what particles are, and it makes predictions as to how they will respond in situations we haven't measured
soccern514 (2:05:37 AM): which is why particle accelerators exist?
soccern514 (2:06:12 AM): you can say yes or no and not have to explain it if its a no
soccern514 (2:06:18 AM): thats a rabbit trail
toxicsmutmulch (2:06:32 AM): exactly right
toxicsmutmulch (2:07:11 AM): evolutionary theory starts with observations (environmental pressures determine what organisms survive to reproduce, parents pass traits on to offspring, fossil records show a (relatively) gradual change in what sorts of organisms were present on earth over time).
toxicsmutmulch (2:09:12 AM): and from those obseervations draws conclusions (the observed changes in form and lifestyle happened because only the organisms best adapted to survive passed on their genetic information. hundreds of millions of years of mutation and selection caused the biodiversity we see today)
toxicsmutmulch (2:11:23 AM): and makes predictions (the closer two species are related, the more geneitc information they'll share, we should look for fossils of certain intermediate organisms in certain strata, bacteria will keep getting resistant if we don't take all our antibiotics)
soccern514 (2:12:04 AM): what about the gap in the fossil record
toxicsmutmulch (2:12:20 AM): there actually keep getting more and more gaps
soccern514 (2:12:33 AM): thats encouraging
toxicsmutmulch (2:12:42 AM): because if you take two organisms, and find one that was between them, that leaves two gaps where there usd to be one
toxicsmutmulch (2:12:45 AM): right?
soccern514 (2:13:01 AM): yeah
toxicsmutmulch (2:13:24 AM): so counting gaps is a bad way of trying to discredit evolution....
toxicsmutmulch (2:14:16 AM): but a lot of the interesting gaps are small enough that you can see how things must have transpired over millions of years
soccern514 (2:14:32 AM): well not just counting gaps, but the really big ones
toxicsmutmulch (2:14:52 AM): there really aren't many of those
toxicsmutmulch (2:16:04 AM): I won't ask you to think of one off the top of your head, but the thing is that big gaps mean room for discovery, which means lots of paleontologists eager to get something named after them. so the gaps don't persist long
toxicsmutmulch (2:17:14 AM): there's a good exhibit on that at the natural history museum here. cetacean evolution. paleontologists looked a long time ago and saw that some structures were very similar between certain extinct types of quadrupeds and whales. that gave them a place to look, and lots of intermediate forms were discovered
soccern514 (2:17:20 AM): ok, well....supposing all that is true then
soccern514 (2:17:25 AM): what about the ultimate question
toxicsmutmulch (2:17:43 AM): ?42
soccern514 (2:17:44 AM): back humans up all the way to the very first atom, they still can't answer where that came from
soccern514 (2:17:48 AM): yes 42
soccern514 (2:18:52 AM): humans to apes all the way to cynobacteria encloses elements in membranes, to the elements to the first atoms
toxicsmutmulch (2:18:57 AM): first of all, it depends. there's some really interesting cosmological research going into how the universe originated. mostly over my head, but it's pretty solid math
toxicsmutmulch (2:19:44 AM): but evolutionary biolgy really only deals with the biology.
soccern514 (2:20:01 AM): yeah, but what i dont like is that people say that it is where life came from
toxicsmutmulch (2:20:03 AM): there's some work going on modeling self arrangement of early biological molecules
toxicsmutmulch (2:20:12 AM): its a common mistake
soccern514 (2:20:22 AM): its possibly how it has changed, but not originated
toxicsmutmulch (2:20:38 AM): evolution really deals with the changes that occurr to life. where it came from is a different issue, but still one science deals with
toxicsmutmulch (2:20:42 AM): yes
soccern514 (2:21:09 AM): ok, well do you think creative design is a valid argument then
soccern514 (2:21:24 AM): or should it not be compared because it more deals with origin
soccern514 (2:21:25 AM): and not change
toxicsmutmulch (2:21:30 AM): valid argument? sure, why not? it's not scientific
soccern514 (2:21:39 AM): scientific argument
toxicsmutmulch (2:22:21 AM): there's scientific ideas it can be compared to, but I wouldn't it's an inherently nonscientific arguement
toxicsmutmulch (2:23:14 AM): would you mind defining "creative design" for me so I can know what Im talking about?
soccern514 (2:23:25 AM): would it not be scientific to study life and see that the more complex we find out things are, the more unlikely that it could all be chance?
soccern514 (2:24:42 AM): well for me personally it would be the christian God, but i know if i mention that i'll get the label "CREATIONIST!!!" stamped onto my forehead, so just being scientific intellegent design....thats the term ive been meaning to use..not creative
soccern514 (2:25:25 AM): some higher superior being designing and creating
toxicsmutmulch (2:28:34 AM): hmmm. not entirely helpful, but I'll go with it. yes, it's possible to imagine observations which would make science change the way it thinks about life and its origins, but postulating a god of any sort would likely not be the road taken. if we see things we don't expect, we look for a mechanism and attempt to discover how it works. it's unlikely sceintists would just throw up their hands and say "it's magic"
toxicsmutmulch (2:29:20 AM): but the thing is, the observations made just reinforce the scientific viewpoint. things are complex, but they're complex in predictable ways
soccern514 (2:31:24 AM): well its never going to be possible though to prove or disprove God by science though
toxicsmutmulch (2:31:37 AM): no one sees raw elements automatically arrange themselves into complex organisms in a petri dish, that'd be something that would make us reconsider everytihng. instead, we see complexity built from individually self-replicating bits, that are incredibly versatile and changeable
toxicsmutmulch (2:32:43 AM): depends. there is no set of observations which can rule out a god, just like there is none that could rule out solipcism (the idea that you are the only thing that exists and everything else is in your head. think The Matrix)
toxicsmutmulch (2:33:05 AM): there are plenty of observations that disprove the more naive ideas of God
toxicsmutmulch (2:33:50 AM): God does not reliably grant prayers, for instance.
soccern514 (2:34:25 AM): just because it isnt always a yes?
toxicsmutmulch (2:34:49 AM): yes. I did say it was a naive idea. but it's one plenty of people have had throughout history
soccern514 (2:35:23 AM): maybe people need a bigger idea of God, He isn't some magic genie there to grant every wish
soccern514 (2:35:33 AM): that would lead to chaos
toxicsmutmulch (2:35:53 AM): if he created the world 6000 years ago with everytihng in its current form, he did an awful lot of covering up to make the world look old. this doesn't rule him or her out completely, just rules out a direct and unsubtle god
toxicsmutmulch (2:35:59 AM): yes
soccern514 (2:36:57 AM): i always heard 10000, but theres a bunch of old earth/new earth theologies that i havent studied much, because frankly i dont see it as a major doctrine
toxicsmutmulch (2:37:04 AM): nor I
soccern514 (2:37:54 AM): the reason why i love my major, and like science, is the more i study
soccern514 (2:38:00 AM): the more i see God's handiwork in it
soccern514 (2:38:05 AM): and see his wisdom
soccern514 (2:38:07 AM): and i love that
toxicsmutmulch (2:38:38 AM): oh, I completely agree. the natural world is a wonderful palce to learn about God
toxicsmutmulch (2:39:31 AM): anyway, I reall need to go to bed
soccern514 (2:39:38 AM): wait
soccern514 (2:39:44 AM): one quick question
soccern514 (2:39:49 AM): this one isnt science
soccern514 (2:39:54 AM): well...i think science disproves it
soccern514 (2:40:07 AM): whats your opinion on postmodernism?
toxicsmutmulch (2:40:20 AM): *goes to wikipedia*
soccern514 (2:41:07 AM): not architectually
soccern514 (2:41:10 AM): but basically
soccern514 (2:41:17 AM): "there is no absolute truth"
toxicsmutmulch (2:42:08 AM): I consider essentially all overarching philosophical statements like that incoherent
soccern514 (2:42:32 AM): well for one...that can't be true if nothing is true...
toxicsmutmulch (2:42:46 AM): that's why I prefaced it with :i consider"
soccern514 (2:42:51 AM): and two...i think science disproves it...because gravity wouldnt equal 9.81 m/s
soccern514 (2:43:07 AM): if nothing was true...
soccern514 (2:43:25 AM): we have to assume so many things are true to advance
toxicsmutmulch (2:43:25 AM): I think you using a little too much sophistry
soccern514 (2:44:01 AM): no idea what that is
toxicsmutmulch (2:44:48 AM): glib, superfically plausible reasoning
soccern514 (2:45:30 AM): well i dont see how postmodern thinking would work in science
toxicsmutmulch (2:45:32 AM): you arent actually considering what the statement might mean to whoever said it, but rather assigning a silly meaning to it and then arguinig against that
toxicsmutmulch (2:45:36 AM): hehe
soccern514 (2:45:42 AM): is my point
toxicsmutmulch (2:46:59 AM): hang on
toxicsmutmulch (2:49:03 AM): read wikipedia about the sokal affair if you're interested in what a lot of scientists think. I personally am willing to allow that liberal arts folks actually have some idea what they're talking about, even if it's completely inscrutable to me. but in general I don't bother
toxicsmutmulch (2:49:36 AM): anyway, it's bed time
soccern514 (2:49:43 AM): thanks for the talk
toxicsmutmulch (2:49:44 AM): thank you, this did not get tiresome
soccern514 (2:49:47 AM): haha
toxicsmutmulch (2:49:47 AM): good night
toxicsmutmulch signed off at 2:49:50 AM
Peter's 2nd to last line really encouraged me "toxicsmutmulch (2:49:44 AM): thank you, this did not get tiresome"
in the past this would have quickly turned into a prideful argument from my standpoint...
this was an intellegent and peaceful discussion
.
toxicsmutmulch is offline and will receive your IMs when