Cecil Moore wrote:

How about the "Theory of Evolution"? Is it right or wrong?

How about all the JFK "Conspiracy Theories"? Are they all
"logically self-consistent"?


Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of
thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of
lumping the two together.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:
Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of
thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of
lumping the two together.

My Southern Baptist Mother (rest her soul) always said that
the theory of evolution was an atheist conspiracy. :-)

And it seems that the theory of evolution has been proved
not to be 100% correct. Man is already, or soon will be,
capable of creating designer species. That's certainly not
random selection. How does manufacturing human blood within
a pig's body fit with the theory of evolution? :-)

How about "string theory", something that cannot even be
tested? Last I heard, there were seven or so competing
string theories - all "logically self-consistent"????
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of
thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of
lumping the two together.

My Southern Baptist Mother (rest her soul) always said that
the theory of evolution was an atheist conspiracy. :-)

A wonderful lady I'm sure. My mother also did not believe in evolution.
She always said "Man did not descend from Apes" She was right on that
count, but wrong about evolution.

The theory has stood the test of time. So many other concepts and
measurements corroborate with it, and none disprove it. If it is wrong,
then most of what we know about the universe is wrong. There will always
be details that may indicate that something here or there needs an
update. But the basic concept and most of the details has survived much
more rigorous testing than the reference material of those who declare
it wrong.


And it seems that the theory of evolution has been proved
not to be 100% correct. Man is already, or soon will be,
capable of creating designer species. That's certainly not
random selection. How does manufacturing human blood within
a pig's body fit with the theory of evolution? :-)

I'm not sure how that disproves anything regarding the theory. In fact,
those things we are tinkering with are just an extension of the theory
in the end. Where the pressure to mutate - and therefore change - comes
from is not necessarily important i the end, but say we're talking about
sheep with human organs in them. Ever wonder what happens to the
embryo's and young ones that didn't have the right attributes?


How about "string theory", something that cannot even be
tested? Last I heard, there were seven or so competing
string theories - all "logically self-consistent"????

Lots more than that, even. More flavors than Baskin-Robbins. I can't
really speculate a lot on string theory. String always seemed like a
"just so" story to me.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:38:53 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of
thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of
lumping the two together.
My Southern Baptist Mother (rest her soul) always said that
the theory of evolution was an atheist conspiracy. :-)
A wonderful lady I'm sure. My mother also did not believe in evolution.
She always said "Man did not descend from Apes" She was right on that
count, but wrong about evolution.

The theory has stood the test of time. So many other concepts and
measurements corroborate with it, and none disprove it. If it is wrong,
then most of what we know about the universe is wrong. There will always
be details that may indicate that something here or there needs an
update. But the basic concept and most of the details has survived much
more rigorous testing than the reference material of those who declare
it wrong.


Those who declare it wrong generally do so from a rigid religious
foundation and then they seek facts - bending them unmercifully in the
process - to support their preconceived objection that the Theory of
Evolution is non- (or even worse, anti-) religious.

It's a battle between objective science and those who believe the
Bible is the literal word of God. Those who believe the Bible is
often allegorical tend to have no real problem with evolution once
they understand it never said that man descended from apes.

One of the most interesting things is that the allegorical nature of
the Bible was an accepted notion, and the so-called fundamentalist ideas
are a relatively new thing, originating in the late 1800's early 1900's.
So I guess it took most of two millenium for them to get it right? Old
time religion apparently started a long time after it started.



And it seems that the theory of evolution has been proved
not to be 100% correct. Man is already, or soon will be,
capable of creating designer species. That's certainly not
random selection. How does manufacturing human blood within
a pig's body fit with the theory of evolution? :-)
I'm not sure how that disproves anything regarding the theory. In fact,
those things we are tinkering with are just an extension of the theory
in the end. Where the pressure to mutate - and therefore change - comes
from is not necessarily important i the end, but say we're talking about
sheep with human organs in them. Ever wonder what happens to the
embryo's and young ones that didn't have the right attributes?


I'd tend to call the whole thing scientific tinkering vs evolution
(natural selection) and I'd characterize Cecil's objections as a near
total non sequitur. You can force fit it if you wish, but I consider
it more charity than anything else to do so. ;-)


I think Cecil's point was more along the line of look at the issues
with this stuff, so how can you be so sure of what you are talking
about. I think that was in response to my noting the interesting
universe we would live in should the law of conservation of energy not
hold sway. (my best guess is that such a universe would be incompatible
with anything living in it, and would immediately destroy itself)

But that conservation of energy law is just about as foundational as you
can get.


How about "string theory", something that cannot even be
tested? Last I heard, there were seven or so competing
string theories - all "logically self-consistent"????
Lots more than that, even. More flavors than Baskin-Robbins. I can't
really speculate a lot on string theory. String always seemed like a
"just so" story to me.


The math - and it's all math at this point - is well beyond something
close to (and probably on the other side of) 99% of mathematicians.
Those at the cutting edge of this field who fully understand the
theory and the underlying math to the extent they can actually add to
current knowledge probably number less than 50, maybe even closer to a
dozen. And it's all complicated by many different theories with not
enough truly capable people sharing one or more theories to mount a
decent peer review effort sufficient to reduce the number of theories
significantly.

It's a work in progress. Even the paintings of the masters looked
like hell at some point before they were finished.

Perhaps. My gut on this is that there are so many flavors, all designed
to "correct" something else. So I'll look into it from time to time, but
I'm not going to hold my breath. 8^) And that math.....

- 73 d eMike KB3EIA -

Jim Higgins wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:47:30 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:38:53 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

It's [evolution vs creation] a battle between objective science
and those who believe the Bible is the literal word of God.
Those who believe the Bible is often allegorical tend to have
no real problem with evolution once they understand it never
said that man descended from apes.
One of the most interesting things is that the allegorical nature of
the Bible was an accepted notion, and the so-called fundamentalist ideas
are a relatively new thing, originating in the late 1800's early 1900's.
So I guess it took most of two millenium for them to get it right? Old
time religion apparently started a long time after it started.


Not having studied much of the history of religion(s) (I suppose
Christianity in this case) this comes as news to me... especially in
light of the Bible declaring itself to be THE word of God and that if
any Man shall add to or take away from it God shall add unto him
plagues and take his name from the book of life. (Revelation 22:18,19
broadly paraphrased.)

And yet so much has been added and taken away over the years that it is
pretty hard to determine what is what.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all - and if I were I darn sure
wouldn't cite a Bible that declares itself to be THE word, and because
it IS THE word it's accurate on that point, as my reason. I do
understand the concept of circular logic and the pitfalls of self
authentication. But it seems to me that the basis for fundamentalism
is very firmly embedded in the Bible in far more places than
Revelation 22 and I'm a bit surprised to hear it emerged only
recently. Perhaps it did so as a reaction to so many other
denominations (for lack of a better word) within Christianity seeming
to blow with the wind on matters the Bible seems to hold as absolute.

There was/is a movement called modernism (kind of a lumped category) in
which a major part was called "liberalism" - not to be confused with
liberal in politics, but the coincidence is juicy. The main strengths of
that movement were that there was no need for elaborate explanations of
where the floodwaters came from, or where they went. Or why we have so
many flavors of the bible, or the other little inconsistencies in the
book. The disadvantage of this liberalism or modernism was that there
are a lot of people who *want* to be told "this is exactly how it is,
there is no wiggle room". Religions in which the adherents set
themselves apart from society - like the Shskers or Amish want every
aspect of life examined and a determination made as to if it is permissible.

At any rate, fundamentalism arose in opposition to modernism. It has
the advantage of a person believing that "this is exactly how it is" and
it needs interpreters to wriggle around the inconsistencies and
contradictions. Of course there is one nasty flaw, in that an exact
interpretation is impossible, due to all the different versions, strange
consequences of trying to explain things like the biblical flood (where
did the water come from, and where did it go to. Did the kangaroos swim
to the Middle East from Australia to get on the Ark so that they
wouldn't drown?

So much better to just look at that as a wonderful story about trust,
doing right against ridicule and planning ahead to save innocents in
harms way of Karma visited on evildoers. We can all debate Karma, but
it's still a darn good story that people should know.


While I don't hold the Bible as being THE word, I look at those who do
and wonder why they aren't all fundamentalists. More to the point, I
think the Bible is clear on that point in many places so I wonder why
any Christians who profess to believe in the Bible as the word of God
- as almost all do if asked - AREN'T fundamentalists.


The fundamentalists have largely succeeded in getting everyone else to
stereotype all Christians as fundamentalists with the only difference
being in degree (yeah, I know it seems a contradiction to have degrees
of fundamentalism


I'd tend to call the whole thing scientific tinkering vs evolution
(natural selection) and I'd characterize Cecil's objections as a near
total non sequitur. You can force fit it if you wish, but I consider
it more charity than anything else to do so. ;-)

I think Cecil's point was more along the line of look at the issues
with this stuff, so how can you be so sure of what you are talking
about. I think that was in response to my noting the interesting
universe we would live in should the law of conservation of energy not
hold sway. (my best guess is that such a universe would be incompatible
with anything living in it, and would immediately destroy itself)


I have no clear idea where Cecil is coming from except that it doesn't
seem to be consistent other than to consistently throw semantical
monkey wrenches into the works.

There might be some here that would say that Cecil enjoys a "bloody
good row". 8^)


Cecil seems to be annoyed by the Scientific Method because at some
point there are competing theories and all can't be correct. Of
course! That's how science works! Not all scientists are correct and
this is resolved by peer review. Peer review is trail by fire. Weak
theories die or are reforged to correct the parts demonstrated to be
wrong and then retested. It's an iterative process designed to get at
the Truth (emphasis by capitalization intended) and in the process a
number of inadequate or totally incorrect theories are expected to
fall by the wayside. Cecil seems to me to be gloating on the
sidelines that there be dumbasses amongst scientists holding competing
points of view because it's obvious they can't all be correct.

At the risk of sounding like a cheerleader, I think the scientific
method is just about the coolest thing to come down the pike. When I
watch someone passionately defend a wrong idea, then have it proven
wrong, then accept a more possible idea without remorse, that is
exhilarating. It's even a thrill to have it happen to ones self.

Who was it that said "Everyone has an idea that is just plain wrong"?



The process is designed to figure out which is which and Cecil seems
to be taking a snapshot in time, criticizing the status at that point
as unresolved and with mutually exclusive components, when the
emphasis of science isn't on the instantaneous status but on applying
the process to make progress.

Pretty good analysis.



But that conservation of energy law is just about as foundational as you
can get.


Conservation of energy AND matter.

As I think you said earlier, if that weren't The Law, I think the
universe would be a very unstable place to the point that it would
VERY rapidly go to the lowest possible entropy state and cease to be a
changing universe.

Aha, that's a much more eloquent assessment than mine. I keep getting
stuck on the idea of a big kaboom, hehe



It's [string theory] a work in progress. Even the paintings of the masters looked
like hell at some point before they were finished.
Perhaps. My gut on this is that there are so many flavors, all designed
to "correct" something else. So I'll look into it from time to time, but
I'm not going to hold my breath. 8^) And that math.....


Aye... the math is incredibly complex and just properly understanding
the concepts at the cutting edge of research today - *minus* any
meaningful understanding of the math - escapes the vast majority of
people close to the field let alone the far larger majority on the
periphery. Those fully understanding both cutting edge theory and
cutting edge math are indeed extremely rare.

Needless to say I'm not in either group. ;-)


I often hope for an eloquent and simple explanation of everything.
Eloquent because it seems like that is how it should be, even without
the idea of symmetry, and simple because that is what I do best.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Jim Higgins wrote:
In any case it strikes me that allowing The Law to be broken
pretty much wrecks literally everything else ...

The law of conservation of energy that my Dad was taught
was broken by the atomic bomb. Of course, the energy in
matter, that had been previously erroneously omitted, was
quickly added.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote in news:8SXci.1489$vi5.246
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:

Jim Higgins wrote:
In any case it strikes me that allowing The Law to be broken
pretty much wrecks literally everything else ...

The law of conservation of energy that my Dad was taught
was broken by the atomic bomb. Of course, the energy in
matter, that had been previously erroneously omitted, was
quickly added.

What on earth was it that he was taught? I certainly wasn't around
then, but any universe that didn't conserve energy would quickly pull all
the available energy from (probably) the first extraction of energy, and
then would soon enter it's lowest possible energy state. Or else possibly
become a continuous kaboom if unlimited energy was available.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Jun 17, 4:27 pm, Jim Higgins wrote:
You are describing the constant advancement of science I was telling
you about.

My argument is not with you, Jim. It is with the people who assert
that scientific theories are never wrong - they just need new boundary
conditions imposed from time to time. The evolution of the
conservation of energy principle of which I am aware went like this:

1. Energy and matter are separate things and energy cannot be created
or destroyed. (1900)
2. Matter can be turned into energy by splitting the atom so energy
cannot be created or destroyed by ordinary chemical means. (1950)
3. Let's redefine matter as a form of energy - therefore energy cannot
be created or destroyed. (2000)

The theory was never wrong. :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil seems to be annoyed by the Scientific Method because at some
point there are competing theories and all can't be correct. Of
course! That's how science works!

Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific
theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of
something that is more correct.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil seems to be annoyed by the Scientific Method because at some
point there are competing theories and all can't be correct. Of
course! That's how science works!

Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific
theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of
something that is more correct.

I'm sure those straw men of yours are shaking in their boots.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK