What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: addygrace
Just curious....what does critical thinking have to do with the Bible?

Firstly I am under impression that you think this is just about bible and Christianity, where quite opposite, this all can be applied to all 'modern' religions.

As for critical thinking - what would happen if you daughter applies critical thinking and for example ask her Sunday teacher - how is possible that someone survived in whale for 3 days? Story is made up, thus whole bible is made of made up stories... what would be reaction?

Science and scriptures have nothing to do with each other.I believe Tim Minchin has best put explanation about science and religion in 2 sentences:

“Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”
― Tim Minchin

originally posted by: addygrace
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

I don't think someone living by these 2 commandments has a problem with critical thinking.

As you probably already knew, this has nothing to do with critical thinking, but you could make great point at hypocrisy in religions. Just look at this thread and all Christians trying to prove that baker had right to discriminate based on sex orientation because of so tolerant belief and bible.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Perhaps all that Old Testament stuff he saw made him feel uncomfortably guilty and rather than thinking critically about changes he would have to make in his attitudes and lifestyle to come up to the standard, instead he chose to avoid any thinking at all that might lead to such moral discomfort.

At least that is one way the Bible could prevent critical thinking in some people.

And this is exactly what we had in mind with abuse of children - creation of guilt feeling that they are not worthy... and scaring them with stories of hell. Thank you for pointing it out.

Bible from starts, where it provides creation story that scientifically is proven wrong and not possible - is made for those not wanting to critically think, but you already know that, don't you?

a reply to: chr0naut

You misintrepret my post. Everything I said is 100% factually true. We DON'T know how many other universes are out there. There could be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... , infinity more universes, or even 0 more universes. I never said that the multiple universe hypothesis is true. I just said we don't know if there are more, therefore it is impossible to declare what the probability of our universe appearing in the greater whatever is. In fact since we know of only one universe and no other possibilities, the odds of our universe appearing are 1 or 100%.

The second half of that quoted part is pure speculation and I phrased it as such. I never affirmed that we live in an infinite universe. I just said IF. It's just an application of probability. I CAN say however that our universe is HUGE and by all accounts is MUCH MUCH larger than the currently visible universe. Scientists have also recently determined that there are planets around every star. So for every star in the universe, there is that many chances for each planet they have for life (possibly intelligent and possibly human). We already know the odds of an intelligent species called humans evolving is greater than 0, so it could probably happen again.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: addygrace
Just curious....what does critical thinking have to do with the Bible?

... snip ...

And this is exactly what we had in mind with abuse of children - creation of guilt feeling that they are not worthy... and scaring them with stories of hell. Thank you for pointing it out.

So, you are saying that you are not an adult?

Bible from starts, where it provides creation story that scientifically is proven wrong and not possible - is made for those not wanting to critically think, but you already know that, don't you?

The Bible is poetic. It is about morals & ethics in action, not mechanisms. It was never intended to be a science textbook, reading it with that expectation, you'll miss what it's all about. The Bible speaks of the reasons why things are the way they are. Science has nothing to say about why, only how.

I have a Physics textbook on Space-time by Wheeler. It's a really good science textbook, but it's crap on moral guidance.

Aside from that, there is much in the Bible that fits with science perfectly.

(Did you know that a first century Kabbalist rabbi Nachmanide, deduced that reality exists in 10 dimensions, 10 "Sephiroth" or emanations of God, in his words, with only four of them knowable, all from the Hebrew text of the first chapter of Genesis? I think that's not too bad for a 3,000 year old text, or from a 2,000 year old mystic).

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

You misintrepret my post. Everything I said is 100% factually true. We DON'T know how many other universes are out there. There could be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... , infinity more universes, or even 0 more universes. I never said that the multiple universe hypothesis is true. I just said we don't know if there are more, therefore it is impossible to declare what the probability of our universe appearing in the greater whatever is. In fact since we know of only one universe and no other possibilities, the odds of our universe appearing are 1 or 100%.

No, the answer is 1/x where the 'x' is unknown. In the superset of infinite possible answers to this, the single answer you gave is insignificant, its 100% of nothing (see, I can play faulty reasoning, too).

The second half of that quoted part is pure speculation and I phrased it as such. I never affirmed that we live in an infinite universe. I just said IF. It's just an application of probability. I CAN say however that our universe is HUGE and by all accounts is MUCH MUCH larger than the currently visible universe.

And all that near infinte real-estate contains variety. It doesn't consist of repetition of the same thing (or nothing), so the improbability of its existence rises with the volume that space occupies, times the variety included within; it doesn't decrease.

Scientists have also recently determined that there are planets around every star.

No, we can only detect planets around stars that are close to us and a survey of every star is beyond human capability.

So for every star in the universe, there is that many chances for each planet they have for life (possibly intelligent and possibly human). We already know the odds of an intelligent species called humans evolving is greater than 0, so it could probably happen again.

Probably, but you simply cannot use ignorance as a proof of anything.

originally posted by: chr0naut
No, the answer is 1/x where the 'x' is unknown. In the superset of infinite possible answers to this, the single answer you gave is insignificant, its 100% of nothing (see, I can play faulty reasoning, too).

I know how to calculate probability. But we know of ONE universe. We know for a FACT that it exists. We know of no other universes. Therefore when talking about probability the most accurate probability we can say for the odds of our universe forming is 100%. I know that isn't the true probability, but it is the only one we can say for sure of given our known information. I know that the true probability is unknown, HOWEVER you can still learn information from what I just said. For instance, we know that the odds AREN'T zero. Therefore another universe just like ours could potentially arise.

And all that near infinte real-estate contains variety. It doesn't consist of repetition of the same thing (or nothing), so the improbability of its existence rises with the volume that space occupies, times the variety included within; it doesn't decrease.

It contains variety, but there are only so many ways that matter can be assembled. Eventually things will repeat. Argue with it all you want, but given a large enough area and enough chances, the creation of Earth along with the development of all the life on it will repeat again. But those odds are pretty low, some odds that are a bit higher: odds that life will arise somewhere else, odds that intelligent life will arise among that life elsewhere, and odds that the intelligent life will be human. All of those odds are greater than 0 regardless of how low they are. Therefore they WILL repeat again. It is a statistical inevitability.

No, we can only detect planets around stars that are close to us and a survey of every star is beyond human capability.

I guess you don't keep up with breaking science. It's ok, I'll help you out:

On Average, Every Star Has At Least One Planet, New Analysis Shows

Each star in the Milky Way shines its light upon at least one companion planet, according to a new analysis that suddenly renders exoplanets commonplace, the rule rather than the exception. This means there are billions of worlds just in our corner of the cosmos. This is a major shift from just a few years ago, when many scientists thought planets were tricky to make, and therefore special things. Now we know they're more common than stars themselves.

Probably, but you simply cannot use ignorance as a proof of anything.

I'm not using ignorance as proof of anything. I'm using the laws of probability to make predictions about the cosmos. Great thing about probability is that if it happened once, it will happen again.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: addygrace

As for critical thinking - what would happen if you daughter applies critical thinking and for example ask her Sunday teacher - how is possible that someone survived in whale for 3 days? Story is made up, thus whole bible is made of made up stories... what would be reaction?

Firstly, the original text says "sea creature" or "great fish", not whale. That is a translational issue.

This is the summary of the Encyclopedia Brittanica's report on Jonah. The report theorizes that the "great fish" was most likely a sperm whale. While the common Greenland whale could scarcely swallow an orange, the sperm whale has a mouth that averages 20 feet long, 15 feet high, and 9 feet wide. It is well known that the sperm whale feeds largely on squid which, of course, are much larger than humans.

The Britannica article maintains that one certainly could, though with great discomfort, survive in a whale's stomach. The report maintains that there would be sufficient air to breathe--air that is necessary for the whale to float. The temperature inside the whale would be great, but bearable at about 104 - 108 degrees F. There would be unpleasant contact with the whale's gastric juices, but these juices could not digest living matter.

There was a report that a man named James Bartleby was swallowed by a whale off the Falklands and survived for two days but this is fiction.

I have heard someone say there was an account of a dog that was rescued alive from a whale but I have been unable to find a reference to it, so it is also probably fictional.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Firstly, it is talking about an average. You seem to have left that part out of your original quote.

Also, an opinion piece on PopSci blog from two years ago does not have the rigour of a peer reviewed paper.

Weren't you just talking about the requirement for hard science and now a blog seems to work for you?

a reply to: chr0naut

How did you came to conclusion that I am not an adult from that quote, it's mystery for me.

So bible has nothing to do with science, poetic book as you said, and you would not know of moral if there was no bible, I would assume, according to your poor example with scientific book that has nothing to do with psychology or personality, but one about space-time...

Firstly, if you take your moral from bible, why can't you take moral stories from Red Riding hood story as well, or 3 little pigs story? They are about the same as stories in bible regarding moral. Tell you the truth, I would be really worried if you really take bible as book about moral - book that gives clear instructions how to own slaves or that similar to Qur'an has instruction why to stone people for some minor misdemeanor.

I find religious people actually less moral, because they are much more likely to judge and discriminate, just as I showed with link to other topic. Add to this centuries of killing of all of those unbelievers and wars between religions... Some of those wars happened at the end of 20th century.

Thank you for fun time reading your comment regarding whales that is no whale, but ended up to be sperm whale in the end... Could you just for fun, explain to me, where did people get in contact with one back then....

And just after you told me bible is poetic moral book...

a reply to: SuperFrog

I never said that the Bible had nothing to do with Science. I was just trying to point out that I would be misreading it if I looked upon it as a textbook of Science. That's just not what it is for.

As for fairy tales and nursery rhymes, weren't they created to scare children into behaving and so are used to "oppress" children? They are mostly violent and speak about fears. Why don't you bash Hans Christian Andersen for his evil oppression of the young, just like you are accusing the writers of the Bible of doing? Or perhaps it is a childish thing to say in the first place?

Anyway, this has gotten WAY off topic.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: SuperFrog

As for fairy tales and nursery rhymes, weren't they created to scare children into behaving and so are used to "oppress" children? They are mostly violent and speak about fears. Why don't you bash Hans Christian Andersen for his evil oppression of the young, just like you are accusing the writers of the Bible of doing? Or perhaps it is a childish thing to say in the first place?

Anyway, this has gotten WAY off topic.

People aren't generally indoctrinated into the notion that fairy tales are real and required to believe them. There aren't educational institutions based on such, or teaching that trolls do inhabit under bridges or that witches with magical incantations are real and disprove science. People (sane ones at least) don't mobilise forces or create policy in telepathic consultation with Prince Charming. There aren't whole areas of pseudo academia devoted to Dopey and Grumpy etc.

originally posted by: [post=18029027]chr0naut[post]
The Britannica article maintains that one certainly could, though with great discomfort, survive in a whale's stomach. The report maintains that there would be sufficient air to breathe--air that is necessary for the whale to float. The temperature inside the whale would be great, but bearable at about 104 - 108 degrees F. There would be unpleasant contact with the whale's gastric juices, but these juices could not digest living matter.

Please, could you source this?

There was a report that a man named James Bartleby was swallowed by a whale off the Falklands and survived for two days but this is fiction.

I have heard someone say there was an account of a dog that was rescued alive from a whale but I have been unable to find a reference to it, so it is also probably fictional.

Why do you accept claims made 3000+ years ago of a human surviving for 3 days inside a whale, but not similar claims made more recently?

How were critical thinking skills applied?

a reply to: chr0naut

Question is why accept some of fairy tales, but not all of them. They both are set around violence and with idea of scaring subjects into believing and being good and somewhat 'moral'. Why would you believe one more then other?

And how can science be in bible, when it was written over thousands of years before science itself. Only people who take bible literally, hard fundamentals believe in such possibility that bible holds secrets of universe. Even great Newton believed in such stories and tried to decipher the bible... guess what he found...

Let me quote TIm Minchin again, from song 'Storm':

Because throughout history
Every mystery
EVER solved has turned out to be
Not Magic.

a reply to: chr0naut

Funny how your argument has devolved from pretending to be a neutral observer, to citing creationist resources and now to apologist justifications how Jonah could have survived in a whale's stomach for 3 days.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Firstly, it is talking about an average. You seem to have left that part out of your original quote.

Also, an opinion piece on PopSci blog from two years ago does not have the rigour of a peer reviewed paper.

Weren't you just talking about the requirement for hard science and now a blog seems to work for you?

You don't think that is the only source for that information do you?

Nearly Every Star In Our Galaxy Hosts At Least One Alien Planet, Scientists Say
Nearly Every Star Hosts at Least One Alien Planet
Microlensing Study Says Every Star in the Milky Way has Planets
Exoplanets are around most stars, study suggests

Oh and here is the paper on it:
One or more bound planets per MilkyWay star from microlensing observations

a reply to: chr0naut

There would be unpleasant contact with the whale's gastric juices, but these juices could not digest living matter.

I wanna know how gastric juices tell the difference between living matter and non-living matter?

Also, if a whale swallows a squid at what point is it dead so that the gastric juices can digest it?

And if a whale swallows a man why doesn't he die like the squid and get digested by the gastric juices?

One last question, do you ever think about the stuff you write? At all? Ever?

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

There would be unpleasant contact with the whale's gastric juices, but these juices could not digest living matter.

I wanna know how gastric juices tell the difference between living matter and non-living matter?

Also, if a whale swallows a squid at what point is it dead so that the gastric juices can digest it?

And if a whale swallows a man why doesn't he die like the squid and get digested by the gastric juices?

One last question, do you ever think about the stuff you write? At all? Ever?

I was quoting Encyclopedia Britannica.

Of course I think about what I write.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Firstly, it is talking about an average. You seem to have left that part out of your original quote.

Also, an opinion piece on PopSci blog from two years ago does not have the rigour of a peer reviewed paper.

Weren't you just talking about the requirement for hard science and now a blog seems to work for you?

You don't think that is the only source for that information do you?

Nearly Every Star In Our Galaxy Hosts At Least One Alien Planet, Scientists Say
Nearly Every Star Hosts at Least One Alien Planet
Microlensing Study Says Every Star in the Milky Way has Planets
Exoplanets are around most stars, study suggests

Oh and here is the paper on it:
One or more bound planets per MilkyWay star from microlensing observations

The paper is four years old and is based only on microlensing data from the years 2002-2007, so it is hardly the latest, as you described.

It is limited to the Milky Way galaxy only, not all stars, as you stated.

It is a statistical approximate based only on specific microlensing data collected at the time, a total of only 43 candidates whose criteria they accept. Compared against current data of 1795 detected exoplanets and the estimated 300 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, it is a very early and inaccurate estimate.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0nautFunny how your argument has devolved from pretending to be a neutral observer, to citing creationist resources and now to apologist justifications how Jonah could have survived in a whale's stomach for 3 days.

Yes, funny that.

The Jonah/whale topic was brought up initially by superfrog and, perhaps foolishly, I responded to it (quoting Encyclopedia Britannica). I also mentioned two references to accounts which, if true, would lend support to the Jonah story, but I pointed out that I did not believe them to be true. It is clear that your assumption of my post being apologist is entirely based on it being filtered by your prejudice.

But I have been led away from the thread topic.

Originally, I cited a peer reviewed and published paper which was pertinent to the topic thread and was thoroughly abused because the paper was from an "Intelligent Design" source.

I was told that the paper was not peer reviewed, which was not true.

I was told that one of the four authors was reprimanded for plagiarism, which was true but has absolutely no bearing on the content of the paper.

I was told that the paper had been rebutted, but it turned out that all references to a rebuttal were in fact a blog by the person who had raised the accusation of plagiarism and were a continuation of that character attack.

At no stage was there any rebuttal of the content of the paper, which was on the topic of bioinformatics. The problem was that the paper under discussion demolished a previous paper by someone who supported Evolutionary Theory and effectively put and end to the previous papers particular argument.

I did point out, and will repeat, that this has gotten totally off-topic. Your statement of the bleedingly obvious has added zero actual content to this thread. Please return to the topic thread.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: chr0naut

Question is why accept some of fairy tales, but not all of them. They both are set around violence and with idea of scaring subjects into believing and being good and somewhat 'moral'. Why would you believe one more then other?

And how can science be in bible, when it was written over thousands of years before science itself. Only people who take bible literally, hard fundamentals believe in such possibility that bible holds secrets of universe. Even great Newton believed in such stories and tried to decipher the bible... guess what he found...

Let me quote TIm Minchin again, from song 'Storm':

Because throughout history
Every mystery
EVER solved has turned out to be
Not Magic.

[sarcasm]
Of course, Tim Minchin would know. He knows all things!
[/sarcasm]

The Bible contains poetry, history, law, songs, ceremonial procedures, moral dilemmas, prophecies, allegories, truths, witness statements, art, cryptography, cultural commentary and instruction. It is actually a library of writings that cover a significant portion of human history. Even if you were to disregard all the religious content, it is still one of the most important documents of the human race. Except for the Vedas, perhaps, there is no other single document that describes such a vast swathe of human experience and thought.

Your equation of the Bible with fairy tales may indicate that your only exposure to it has been from a few Sunday School stories or online comments. If you read the actual document, cover to cover, you may have a different view.