I am an atheist thread 4

[Soetje]

I think natural selection could easily be proven wrong. Why would you think it could not be?

Easily? Not quite so…

One experiment which one would think could prove Natural Selection wrong would be this: take two similar speacies (like 2 types of ants), study them in dept for years. Choose a natural disaster of your liking, could be anything from weather to disease. Now, from your study, you should be able to tell which speacies is better equiped to survive. You do the test, but OH! the underdog survives and leaves you gapping…did you just prove natural selection wrong? Nope.

Because Natural Selection is always right. You can always say: oh well, you research must have been wrong. We missed something. Nature shocks us again." Which means it isn’t a proper scientic theory. Just like the “God” theory.

by natural selection, I’m talking about survival of the fitest here…one basis on which evolution founds itself; though natural selection doesn’t equal evolution.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Easily? Not quite so…

One experiment which one would think could prove Natural Selection wrong would be this: take two similar speacies (like 2 types of ants), study them in dept for years. Choose a natural disaster of your liking, could be anything from weather to disease. Now, from your study, you should be able to tell which speacies is better equiped to survive. You do the test, but OH! the underdog survives and leaves you gapping…did you just prove natural selection wrong? Nope.

Because Natural Selection is always right. You can always say: oh well, you research must have been wrong. We missed something. Nature shocks us again." Which means it isn’t a proper scientic theory. Just like the “God” theory.

by natural selection, I’m talking about survival of the fitest here…one basis on which evolution founds itself; though natural selection doesn’t equal evolution.

Your definition of natural selection is off. If you leave it at “survival of the fittest”, it is indeed a tautology, and therefore not scientifically falsifiable. Quite right!

But that’s not the correct definition, it’s just a convenient abbreviation. The correct definition is closer to “traits which help an organism to survive will tend to become more common across multiple generations.”

This formulation could be falsified by experiment, as long as you are able to accurately pin down which traits help survival. It’s pretty obvious that antibiotic resistance will help bacteria survive in a slightly antibiotic solution, right? So if you have two strains of bacteria, only one of which has antibiotic resistance, you simply expose both strains to the solution, wait a few generations, and see which strain has been more successful.

This experiment has been done, of course, and confirms natural selection quite nicely.

Man, I’m on A’s side again. A, could you please say something silly again so I can get back on track?

 

[Soetje]

Your definition of natural selection is off. If you leave it at “survival of the fittest”, it is indeed a tautology, and therefore not scientifically falsifiable. Quite right!

But that’s not the correct definition, it’s just a convenient abbreviation. The correct definition is closer to “traits which help an organism to survive will tend to become more common across multiple generations.”

This formulation could be falsified by experiment, as long as you are able to accurately pin down which traits help survival. It’s pretty obvious that antibiotic resistance will help bacteria survive in a slightly antibiotic solution, right? So if you have two strains of bacteria, only one of which has antibiotic resistance, you simply expose both strains to the solution, wait a few generations, and see which strain has been more successful.

This experiment has been done, of course, and confirms natural selection quite nicely.

Man, I’m on A’s side again. A, could you please say something silly again so I can get back on track?

There is only one things wrong with this, is that you say you confirm natural selection. I’m talking about refuting it. Which is impossible.

We can ONLY confirm natural selection (sorry bout the definition, was trying to keep it simple.)

Say, with your experiment, that the species with the antibiotic resistance had died, and the one without had survived; do you then refute the theory? Or admit that you had to have missed something?

Confirming it isn’t the problem…

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

A single experiment doesn’t refute anything, but it would certainly constitute a strong data point against the theory. If it could be reproduced consistently, that would certainly refute the theory.

 

[Soetje]

A single experiment doesn’t refute anything, but it would certainly constitute a strong data point against the theory. If it could be reproduced consistently, that would certainly refute the theory.

Except that there is no experiement which would be definitive enough to even once refute the theory. The problem is not wether or not an experiement can prove it right or wrong; but that there is NO experiment which would have the possibility to refute it.

BUT, anyways. Sort of offtopic now…

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Eh, this thread has no topic, and the moderators don’t pay any attention. There’s no rules in here, it’s like Thunderdome!

Why do you say that my experiment, if it repeatedly demonstrated that antibiotic resistance was not selected for, would not be definitive?

 

[Soetje]

Eh, this thread has no topic, and the moderators don’t pay any attention. There’s no rules in here, it’s like Thunderdome!

Why do you say that my experiment, if it repeatedly demonstrated that antibiotic resistance was not selected for, would not be definitive?

It isn’t that it would not be definitive. I would only prove the theory right over and over again; without the possibility of ever proving it wrong.

I should make my opinion clear I suppose. Natural Selection is not a proper scientific theory, it is more akin to a “belief system” like Faith. You cannot refute Faith, there is no experiement in which there would be the possibility that God be disproved. Someone could just say: God wanted it that way.

You understand? However you look at it, Natural Selection will always be proved right. Which is everything science is not. There are other loopholes like this one in science. Gravity for exemple, is a theory you cannot disprove. Today we take it from granted that gravity exists of course, its sort of one of those universal truth…

But as a theory in the scientic world we built, it cannot exist, because there is no possible experiment which we could invent that MIGHT prove it wrong. Its the MIGHT thats important. Without a chance at refuting a hypothesis, it cannot be called a theory!

…I’m lost in all the mind-boggling mush now. It makes sense in my head…it really does…mumbles fade

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I think the problem you’re bumping into is not that natural selection/gravity cannot possibly be falsified. The problem is that they are obviously true, so the falsification attempt will fail.

I could easily create an experiment to falsify gravity. Throw up a ball. If it doesn’t come down, the theory of gravity is incorrect. Of course we all know it will come down, because the theory **is **correct.

mumbles fade

 

[phooney]

Just wanted to pop in and say that if anybody cares about the scientific point of view, feel free to ignore Jonathan’s advice about “what the bleep do we know?” This is essentially a con that plays on the confusion arising from the complexity of quantum physics.

Such underhanded tactics, truly horrible.

Also I’m gobsmacked that you can’t think of a way to disprove natural selection.

Take a population of bacteria, split it into two separate populations. Put one population in the anti-biotic environment, and leave one in the control/neutral environment. Allow them both to reproduce for many generations. Take a sample from each population and apply the same anti-biotic to each population. Which population is more resistant?

Repeat several times, and this body of data might constitute significant evidence against natural selection. Unless natural selection as a component of evolution is correct.

You seem to think you should only have to do one experiment to disprove a theory, but by that rationale there are NO scientific theories. They need to be independently confirmed.

 

[Soetje]

Just wanted to pop in and say that if anybody cares about the scientific point of view, feel free to ignore Jonathan’s advice about “what the bleep do we know?” This is essentially a con that plays on the confusion arising from the complexity of quantum physics.

Such underhanded tactics, truly horrible.

Also I’m gobsmacked that you can’t think of a way to disprove natural selection.

Take a population of bacteria, split it into two separate populations. Put one population in the anti-biotic environment, and leave one in the control/neutral environment. Allow them both to reproduce for many generations. Take a sample from each population and apply the same anti-biotic to each population. Which population is more resistant?

Repeat several times, and this body of data might constitute significant evidence against natural selection. Unless natural selection as a component of evolution is correct.

You seem to think you should only have to do one experiment to disprove a theory, but by that rationale there are NO scientific theories. They need to be independently confirmed.

You cannot have a true scientific hypothesis without being able to refute it experiementally.

And again, Natural Selection cannot refuted by your experiment, if anything you confirm it.

Lets go back to the core of this discussion:

I will only believe in things that can be scientifically refuted.

Thats all I said to start with lol. It was meant more as a joke than anything.

Gravity and Natural Selection are sort of like laws really. We see it happen in our everyday life. But in the scientific world, nothing is suppose to be concreat. You have have things that are confirmed over and over again, but no one will dare say its a universal truth, because it might one day be proven wrong. Thats the whole basis behind scientic hypothesis. Everything is only ever always a hypothesis, theories are hypothesis which have been confirmed a large number of times and are generally accepted as true…and laws, well…the scientific world tries to stay far away from that word.

Its all philosophy, in the end. Its a way of thinking. I believe in gravity and natural selection, of course. Are they your normal scientific hypothesis, no. Probably because, as said before, they are unchanging laws of our world.

 

[phooney]

Hmm… Well, as Natural Enquirer said, you seem to be confusing things that can’t be disproved no matter what and things that haven’t been disproved because they are true.

The experiment I described would go a long way to disproving natural selection if it was found that the control population repeatedly ended up with better resistance to the anti-biotics than the population subjected to the selection pressure of surviving in the anti-biotic environment.

Again, by your reasoning, there are no scientific theories.

Also, there is no scientific progression that theories go through to become a law. A scientific theory doesn’t become a law after it has been confirmed x number of times. It’s still the theory of gravity, and it is still the theory of evolution by natural selection, it is still atomic theory.

Scientific laws refer to those observations of phenomena that have been expressed in mathematical formulae. Kepler’s Laws, Isaac Newton’s Laws of Motion, etc. As you can see, even laws can be overturned/honed such as when Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and associated mathematical formula (“Newton, forgive me,” he wrote in his memoirs.).

I hope I’m not coming across to harshly.

 

[Soetje]

Hmm… Well, as Natural Enquirer said, you seem to be confusing things that can’t be disproved no matter what and things that haven’t been disproved because they are true.

The experiment I described would go a long way to disproving natural selection if it was found that the control population repeatedly ended up with better resistance to the anti-biotics than the population subjected to the selection pressure of surviving in the anti-biotic environment.

Again, by your reasoning, there are no scientific theories.

Also, there is no scientific progression that theories go through to become a law. A scientific theory doesn’t become a law after it has been confirmed x number of times. It’s still the theory of gravity, and it is still the theory of evolution by natural selection, it is still atomic theory.

Scientific laws refer to those observations of phenomena that have been expressed in mathematical formulae. Kepler’s Laws, Isaac Newton’s Laws of Motion, etc. As you can see, even laws can be overturned/honed such as when Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and associated mathematical formula (“Newton, forgive me,” he wrote in his memoirs.).

I hope I’m not coming across to harshly.

Harshly no. You misunderstood me. I in fact said that there are no scientic laws…if you read carefully.

I’m not mistaking anything. There are billions of proper scienfic theories for which experiements can be made; I am, of course aware of this fact

Acoording to the webster, natural selection is this:

a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment

This, is a fact. Of course its true and will not be proven wrong anytime soon. Its how the world works. I you read the post which started this, what I said was that Natural Selection was not a refutable scientific theory. Just like God isn’t a refutable scientic theory (some people do bring God in science). You either realize that natural selection is happening, or you close your eyes and say it isn’t. But no experiment will refute it.

So, again, I’m not confused about anything. I believe you have misunderstood the purpose of the conversation in the first place.

 

[phooney]

Perhaps I am mistaken in what you were intending to convey…

But you said “I will only believe in things that can be scientifically refuted.”

You identified natural selection and gravity as examples of these things that couldn’t be refuted. I think this is where the confusion may have arisen?

Sorry, I’m not reading too carefully at the moment… also cooking dinner!

 

[Soetje]

Perhaps I am mistaken in what you were intending to convey…

But you said “I will only believe in things that can be scientifically refuted.”

You identified natural selection and gravity as examples of these things that couldn’t be refuted. I think this is where the confusion may have arisen?

Sorry, I’m not reading too carefully at the moment… also cooking dinner!

hehe, no problem. As I said, I was mostly joking. Thinking up a scientifically based belief system where one would only believe in things that adhere to the scientific definition of a hypothesis…which means, things that can be refuted experimentally.

Of course there might be a day where we will refute gravity, natural selection and even God. But I was sort of not thinking so far ahead

Besides, the last time someone refuted gravity, we ended up with dark matter!! (in case you miss it, THAT was also a comical comment )

 

[phooney]

“Of course there might be a day where we will refute gravity, natural selection and even God. But I was sort of not thinking so far ahead”

As long as you are clear in your distinction between the “unrefuted” and the “unrefutable due to having no quantifiable attributes.” which I don’t think you have been. Natural selection and gravity are in the set of the former, God in the latter (thus far at least).

 

[gnaaus]

The bible can be taken any number of ways, there are the people who believe in the book itself, and there are people who believe in the church itself, often you can not find both in one person.

For example, church is strictly a social event and has nothing to do with to do with heaven and hell, it is for people who wish to gain approval from others and to hear the word of god from the mouth of a fellow man as he percieves it.

Mary played her part as did the romans in the death of jesus, jesus predicted what was comming long before it came, he was a train on the tracks, everything that has happend and will happen is because god is the creator. Take for example when jesus sat at the table and told his followers that someone among them will betray him.

Some churches speak of the bible as simply a guideline or reference in which they base their twisted ways off of, where they can add and take away in order to gain more power over the peoples lives that they consume. Take communion for example, catholics believe they are truely eating the body and blood of christ when infact everything they eat is considered to be the body and blood of christ since god made everything, thus, the bread and wine is a only sign of faith and can be bought from walmart by anyone.

There is no “easy-bake oven instructions on how to make the body and blood of christ” in the bible, and what good is the bible if the instructions are not listed for all to see? The faith is in god, not man. God does not speak through a fellow man, he can not since time does not allow it, if he changes something this instant it will appear to have been there for as long as any of us can remember.

There is also nothing about the daily Hail Mary in the bible, and if it is of such importance then why is it not in the sacred book? Some catholics say silly things like “Well, YOU arent in the bible either” its hard to reason with something as idiotic as that as it only goes to show how petty and broken they are.

The bible is about faith in god, not blindly following a man who is driven by traditional corruption.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Sorry, I’m not reading too carefully at the moment… also cooking dinner!

I thought I smelled smoke.

 

[1234]

I agree with pretty much everything you said above. I don’t understand how you get from there to free will.

Let’s leave consciousness and thought aside for now, and stick with free will. If it’s just a function of the brain, it ain’t free.

Look at it this way. Billiard balls have no free will, right? Because they’re just following physical laws. Cue ball hits eight ball, eight ball moves off at velocity v. No choice involved.

Similarly, if your brain is just following physical laws, then none of the components (or the overall system) can have no free will. Electron jumps across synapse, you “decide” to eat bacon for breakfast. No choice involved, just the playing out of natural laws.

I don’t know why this is not getting through. Can I ask you what you think the mechanism of choice is?

Decisions within the brain are complex physiological processes which are influenced the millions of prior processes which have taken place along the same pathways, in addition to the physical environment they are now in, and the genetic processes under which the brain cells were formed. It’s just a lot more complicated than billiard balls striking each each other which is more or less along the lines of simple physics.

The problem with all these arguments is (at least) twofold:

–They are simplistic. EITHER you believe that there is “Free Will” OR you believe that we are just “Mindless Automatons.” The reality is that the brain makes decisions based on processes which we are only beginning to understand; the basis of these processes lies completely in the physical world.

—Concepts such as “Truth” or “Free Will” do not exist apart from their conceptualization as ideas. There is no Absolute Truth or Free Will floating around out there, or sitting around like the Heisman Trophy, waiting to be awarded to the deserving. I maintain that the concept of Free Will is just that, a concept. It exists only, like Transubstantiation, for example. Neither exists in real life. I think that you are alleging the existence of a creator because humans ‘think’ or have ‘free will’. Humans think because their highly developed brains, particularly the frontal lobes, which are much more highly developed than other species, do the thinking, for the most part. (Temporal lobes are involved in memory, parietal in speech, but anyway…). I maintain that virtually all of our decisions are conditioned by physical processes, including memory( which ‘animals’ also have), genetics, pharmacology (antidepressants, for ex) and a variety of physical processes which are being discovered every day, such as, recently the interaction between genes and personality, right down to the specific gene.

None of this need involve a creator.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

–They are simplistic. EITHER you believe that there is “Free Will” OR you believe that we are just “Mindless Automatons.” The reality is that the brain makes decisions based on processes which we are only beginning to understand; the basis of these processes lies completely in the physical world.

All that you’ve said is that the brain is complex. I know that. It’s irrelevent.
Why is the above a false dichotomy? I don’t like the term “mindless” since “mind” can be defined as the illusion of free thought processes. But automaton is certainly legit, if the only (name removed by moderator)uts to the system are physical laws.

 

[Jonathan82]

Are you an agnostic with respect to unicorns? Leprechauns? Hobbits? Giants?
There is a strong enough lack of evidence to flatly disbelieve in a god or gods until someone does produce some reasonable evidence.
Are you agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Agnostic, if it means you don’t know yet, is OK, but you had better keep learning. If by ‘agnostic’ you mean that nothing can be known about god, then you are either a believer, or making a joke.

So tell me, Jonathan, do you believe in transubstantiation? If so, what evidence has caused you to believe?

Well thanks for going to the extreme A, I wouldn’t expect anything else from you.

If I say I am agnostic to certain things it means I give it a chance in other words to prove itself. I don’t know much about pink Unicorns but from what Ive heard the majority of people don’t believe in them or Leprechauns either but the majority does believe in Christ; also there is a book with historical evidence that goes along with it like Pilot crucifying Jesus etc. whether that truly happened I cannot prove it to you and I don’t really care to either but it holds more ground than your Unicorn and Leprechaun which everybody I know at least accepts it as a Myth. Now if tomorrow everyone decided to call the color Orange purple then it would be purple wouldn’t it.

Oh and about the transubstantiation. If your asking me if I believe we are eating Jesus, I say if Jesus is God and he said we are eating him then we are. Its also possible its symbolic ever think of that?