Anyone see that article in the Irish Independent on Friday?

Scofflaw · 03-01-2007 08:05PM

Wicknight wrote:

Well put.

An analogy that is often used on this forum and others on Boards.ie, (and was originally made by a famous scientists, so famous I can't remember his name ) was that science is like trying to figure out the rules of chess from just watching the game be played.

So you can watch a pawn move up the board. After a while you notice it never moves to the sides, only forward. So you make a theory that a pawn can only move forward and you keep watching. This theory is supported by the evidence of you observing the game so you hold on to it as it appears good. But then after ages of watching game after game, you see that the pawn moves to the side and up to take a piece. You then update your theory to reflect this new observation, and continue on.

Despite the fact that a theory on the game might have something down to a tee, and be 100% correct, at no point will anyone tell you that this is true or that you have learnt all the rules of the game. In essence you cannot ever prove your theories are correct, and it is illogical to claim that you can or have.

Your theory might be "A castle will move only forward or sideways so long as no other piece is in the way". You might think that is 100% correct, until you see a player Castle, swapping his king and castle around. It would have been very foolish to say you had proved your original theory because you have just watched something that shows it was not in fact proved.

Science is the process of building up models that we think accurately reflect the universe around us as best we can tell. While our models, or parts of our models, might reflect the universe very well (100% even), we will never know this, and as such we cannot say we have ever proven anything, because we can't tell what is or is not certain.

Neo-darwin biological evolution theory modules the natural world around us as best as we can tell. It models what the evidence suggests as best as we can tell. Like all scientific theory it is not perfect, and we will never get it perfect. But based on the reading of the evidence, and the successful prediction of future evidence, it appears to be a very good model.

Therefore saying "evolution is only a theory" shows more about the ignorance of the utterer to science than a negativity towards evolution.

That chess analogy should be used much much more often - it's certainly the first time I've ever heard it, and it's a brilliantly simple summary.

Were I a Creationist, I would probably argue that the Bible is like having the "Rules of Chess" to hand. If only the Bible actually contained that sort of information!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins · 03-01-2007 08:34PM

o1s1n wrote:

Fair play to you lot. Some nice in depth replies there.

I'm coming from a background that's pretty steeped in religion, so I just thought I'd throw out some of the arguments people I know (some quite close to me in fact) use on a regular basis to try and defend their creationist standpoint.

I'm in no way linked to any of that, I hate it in fact, but always found their evolution arguments quite interesting. Obviously you've changed my opinion somewhat. I think lots more reading is probably in order.

Well most progressive theologians accept evolution.
Kenneth Miller's, "Finding Darwin's God" is all about accepting the theory of evolution will maintaining a belief in God.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Finding-Darwins-God-Kenneth-Miller/dp/0060930497/sr=8-1/qid=1167852754/ref=pd_ka_1/203-5930649-7219106?ie=UTF8&s=books

It would probably be a better read for a theist than Richard Dawkins stuff.

o1s1n · 03-01-2007 09:05PM

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I am in no way a theist. I don't believe in any deities at all. Although, I don't completely throw out the possibility that that there could be some higher consciousness or being that we're not yet able to understand. Therefore I wouldn't consider myself a proper atheist. I'm just simply looking for answers. Once I find them I'll then figure out what group i fit into

Thanks for the book link anyway. I'll give it a look.

Tim Robbins · 03-01-2007 09:50PM

o1s1n wrote:

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I am in no way a theist. I don't believe in any deities at all. Although, I don't completely throw out the possibility that that there could be some higher consciousness or being that we're not yet able to understand. Therefore I wouldn't consider myself a proper atheist. I'm just simply looking for answers. Once I find them I'll then figure out what group i fit into
Thanks for the book link anyway. I'll give it a look.

I think the point about Kenneth Miller is that both theist and atheist commmunity accept evolution. It is really only hardcore fundamentalists or creationists that don't now. There's a of propaganda coming mainly the creationists in the US in my opinion that comes up with rhetoric like: 'evolution is only a theory' but as you can see when you dig through that statement you realise the ignorance of it.

Scofflaw · 03-01-2007 09:59PM

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think the point about Kenneth Miller is that both theist and atheist commmunity accept evolution. It is really only hardcore fundamentalists or creationists that don't now. There's a of propaganda coming mainly the creationists in the US in my opinion that comes up with rhetoric like: 'evolution is only a theory' but as you can see when you dig through that statement you realise the ignorance of it.

Hmm. Isn't o1s1n essentially saying that he is an agnostic, but still disagrees with evolution?

If that is the case, is that the result of claims that "people I know (some quite close to me in fact) use on a regular basis to try and defend their creationist standpoint", or does the objection to evolution stem from something else?

cordially,
Scofflaw

o1s1n · 03-01-2007 10:24PM

The logical side of me says the concept of deities is nonsensical and ridiculous. Faries and Unicorns as Dawkins so eloquently puts it. Yet some tiny part of me keeps saying the universe is so vast and complex and finely tuned that It couldn't be anything other then some grand creator. Which sounds ridiculous I know.

But how can something as complex as mathematics just come about?
The Moon being just exactly the right size and distance from the Earth to cause an eclipse?
It just seems like a hell of a lot of coincidences to all be put down to chance. But then again, there are billions of stars, billions of galexies. So who knows. Maybe that's all it was.

Therefore I find it pointless to even attempt to go one way or the other as it usually ends up in a massive headache.

I never said I wholeheartedly rejected evolution. All I said was I had some problems which prevented me from accepting it as something I believed myself. If I can have those problems ironed out, fair enough. Results of what I hear around me on a regular basis? Probably.

Oh, sorry If I'm annoying anyone by going completely off topic. I'll shut up!

SonOfPerdition · 03-01-2007 11:14PM

o1s1n wrote:

The logical side of me says the concept of deities is nonsensical and ridiculous. Faries and Unicorns as Dawkins so eloquently puts it. Yet some tiny part of me keeps saying the universe is so vast and complex and finely tuned that It couldn't be anything other then some grand creator. Which sounds ridiculous I know.

But how can something as complex as mathematics just come about?
The Moon being just exactly the right size and distance from the Earth to cause an eclipse?

Ah, but a solar eclipse isn't always a total eclipse. Specifically, an annular eclipse is when the moon is too far away to totally cover the sun and we see a bright ring around the moon. So where's your perfect ratio then?
This is caused by the moon having an eliptical orbit rather than a circular one.
And, the moons orbit is slowly moving further away from the earth, eventually a total solar eclipse will no longer happen. Actually, it's estimated that at the early stagges the moon was 10 times closer to us.

You and the rest of us just happen to be alive at a point in time when a total solar eclispe is visible on earth. Its no sign of a creator .. its just good luck! Granted, the window of oppourtunity is quite large as the timescale of the moon causing solar eclipses is rather long compared to our puny lifecycles.

some sources for you.
http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/our_solar_system/the_moon/facts.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse

i've always wondered why evolution is so much under attack from creationism when cosmology blows their claims out of the water. The furthest we can observe is roughly 13.5billion light years to the edge of our observable universe. How can creationist theory explain starlight travelling for that distance (and for 13.5billion years) if the universe and the earth is only 6000 years old? Next time you talk to your creationist friends ask them that little puzzler.

EDIT: I've just read the difference between young earth creationism and old earth creationism, so i suppopse my last point isn't quite applicable. Unless your friends are YEC's.

Tim Robbins · 03-01-2007 11:22PM

o1s1n wrote:

The logical side of me says the concept of deities is nonsensical and ridiculous. Faries and Unicorns as Dawkins so eloquently puts it. Yet some tiny part of me keeps saying the universe is so vast and complex and finely tuned that It couldn't be anything other then some grand creator. Which sounds ridiculous I know.

But how can something as complex as mathematics just come about?
The Moon being just exactly the right size and distance from the Earth to cause an eclipse?
It just seems like a hell of a lot of coincidences to all be put down to chance. But then again, there are billions of stars, billions of galexies. So who knows. Maybe that's all it was.

Therefore I find it pointless to even attempt to go one way or the other as it usually ends up in a massive headache.

I never said I wholeheartedly rejected evolution. All I said was I had some problems which prevented me from accepting it as something I believed myself. If I can have those problems ironed out, fair enough. Results of what I hear around me on a regular basis? Probably.

Oh, sorry If I'm annoying anyone by going completely off topic. I'll shut up!

Yeah I can see where you are coming from.
I fully accept evolution but I also find it mind boggling how some constants in the universe are of such a critical, exact and relevant value. They appear as if they were set so that life could evolve somewhere.
This book "Just Six Numbers" explains it better and it also definetly worth a read.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Just-Six-Numbers-Forces-Universe/dp/0465036732/sr=8-2/qid=1167862465/ref=sr_1_2/203-5930649-7219106?ie=UTF8&s=books

So I would be agnostic in some respects.
However, I am confident that if there is a creater(s), it is nothing close to anything as argued by any theology or religion, so in that respect I am atheist. The main reason for this is because of my acceptance of evolution and my feelings on the amount of suffering in the world.
I know some theists can accept both and still have a belief in a God, but I can't.
However, I also respect the good that religion does for some people, so in that respect, I conclude and call myself a liberal atheist.
Religion only annoys me when it goes to an extreme level and refuses to accept any science that contradicts its ancient scripture e.g. evolution, or if it refuses to respect other religions or people who choose to have none.

Put it this way, I'll respect them as long as they respect me.

Zombrex · 03-01-2007 11:22PM

o1s1n wrote:

Yet some tiny part of me keeps saying the universe is so vast and complex and finely tuned that It couldn't be anything other then some grand creator. Which sounds ridiculous I know.

I would point out that there is nothing in evolution that says we didn't have a creator. There is nothing in abiogenesis that says that either.

What evolution does is contradict the Biblical account of creation (and other religions such as Hindu). That is why some theists get all in a hump about evolution, because they take those stories literally and evolution (and pretty much the rest of modern science) says that if taken literally they are wrong.

It stands to reason that if there is a creator he/she/it created us using evolution.

o1s1n · 03-01-2007 11:47PM

SonOfPerdition wrote:

You and the rest of us just happen to be alive at a point in time when a total solar eclispe is visible on earth. Its no sign of a creator .. its just good luck! Granted, the window of oppourtunity is quite large as the timescale of the moon causing solar eclipses is rather long compared to our puny lifecycles.

See, it's this "luck" that bothers me. Not only are we alive to witness this, our planet is just far enough/close enough from the sun so that we wont all be frazzled or freeze. Our axis just happens to be tilted at 23.5 degrees to give us seasons. I could think of many more such instances of luck but my brain is quite knackered at the moment to be honest. They could all have been formed by natural occurances, granted. But all of them together on one planet is a little odd.
I'm not saying it was a creator, I just think we have a frighteningly large amount of "luck"!

[/QUOTE] i've always wondered why evolution is so much under attack from creationism when cosmology blows their claims out of the water. The furthest we can observe is roughly 13.5billion light years to the edge of our observable universe. How can creationist theory explain starlight travelling for that distance (and for 13.5billion years) if the universe and the earth is only 6000 years old? Next time you talk to your creationist friends ask them that little puzzler.[/QUOTE]

Not all creationists believe the earth is only 6000 years old. Some believe that the "days" of creation are not actual days. So that's an arguement I can't actually use in this instance

Tim Robbins, I agree with you 100%. If there is some form of higher entity, it certainly isn't manifest in any religion on the planet today.

Tim Robbins · 03-01-2007 11:53PM

o1s1n wrote:

Tim Robbins, I agree with you 100%. If there is some form of higher entity, it certainly isn't manifest in any religion on the planet today.

Well whatever decisions you make just remember that there is a lot of variation of opinion on both sides.
I am one of the few atheists on this forum for example who isn't a Dawkins fan, I think some of his arguments are very poor. Some atheists are treating this bloke like Jesus mark II, and think anything he touches turns to gold!

You should try and check out a philosopher called Colin McGinn, he would be the most impressive speaker on atheism I have ever heard.

o1s1n · 04-01-2007 12:09AM

Tim Robbins wrote:

Some atheists are treating this bloke like Jesus mark II, and think anything he touches turns to gold!

I had noticed that, it seemed a little worrying. The cult of Dawkins. Hmm.They'll have their own churches next

Anyway, I'll make sure to check out Colin McGinn. Cheers for the info.

SonOfPerdition · 04-01-2007 12:17AM

o1s1n wrote:

See, it's this "luck" that bothers me. Not only are we alive to witness this, our planet is just far enough/close enough from the sun so that we wont all be frazzled or freeze. Our axis just happens to be tilted at 23.5 degrees to give us seasons. I could think of many more such instances of luck but my brain is quite knackered at the moment to be honest. They could all have been formed by natural occurances, granted. But all of them together on one planet is a little odd.
I'm not saying it was a creator, I just think we have a frighteningly large amount of "luck"!

yeah ... but if we hadn't the luck we would never have existed to even question why we had the luck. ;O)

every star has a habitable region where a planet can orbit and support life. It depends on the size of the star and the lifetime of the star to support life evolving.

From what i can remember every planet in our solar sytem is tilted. Mars for instance has seasons where the current mars rovers have to reduce their activities during the martian winters.

In the vastness of the universe where there are billions of billions of galaxies containing billions of stars each, how probable is it that some stars will gently radiate planets and allow life to develop? We know of at least one so the probability is greater than zero.

don't think of it as luck (that was a bad choice of word by me) .. think of it as probabilities.

Sangre · 04-01-2007 12:34AM

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yeah I can see where you are coming from.
I fully accept evolution but I also find it mind boggling how some constants in the universe are of such a critical, exact and relevant value. They appear as if they were set so that life could evolve somewhere.

They're critical, exact and relevant because life has always functioned on those basis. Adapting to conditions that aren't required is a huge waste of time, energy and resources.

Findings of life leaving on ocean vents, in 100+ Celsius temperatures with no source of light have shown that life and its requirements aren't as delicate as we thought.

Dave! · 04-01-2007 12:38AM

o1s1n wrote:

See, it's this "luck" that bothers me. Not only are we alive to witness this, our planet is just far enough/close enough from the sun so that we wont all be frazzled or freeze. Our axis just happens to be tilted at 23.5 degrees to give us seasons. I could think of many more such instances of luck but my brain is quite knackered at the moment to be honest. They could all have been formed by natural occurances, granted. But all of them together on one planet is a little odd.
I'm not saying it was a creator, I just think we have a frighteningly large amount of "luck"!

But there's billions and billions of planets that do NOT support life. If there's so many planets, the probability of NONE of them having the necessary conditions to sustain life would be close to zero -- or since we already know that Earth sustains life, it IS zero!

Think of it like this... say the necessary conditions are: right distance from sun, right orbit, right size, right tilt (I'm not arsed reading up the ACTUAL conditions).

Now go through each planet orbitting a star...

Planet 1: right distance, wrong orbit, wrong size, wrong tilt = no life
Planet 2: wrong distance, right orbit, wrong size, wrong tilt = no life
Planet 3: wrong distance, wrong orbit, right size, wrong tilt = no life
Planet 4: wrong distance, wrong orbit, wrong size, right tilt = no life
etc.
Planet 51: right distance, right orbit, right size, wrong tilt = no life
Planet 52: right distance, right orbit, right size, right tilt = LIFE!

Now add in ALL of the necessary conditions for life, but include ALL the planets, and it starts to become alot more unreasonable to believe that life couldn't have started than to believe that it could have.

It's probably a similarly good reason to believe that Earth isn't the only planet that can sustain life, and hopefully we'll confirm that within my lifetime!

o1s1n · 04-01-2007 01:13AM

I do know what you're trying to say. It's an argument I'd use myself.

right distance, right orbit, right size, right tilt = LIFE!. Okay you're using four different variables there in a simplified way to get your point across. Probability wise, when you have billions of galaxies, it's going to happen at some point or another with only 4 variables. When you start adding extra variables, the probability reduces drastically. Who knows how many variables it would take to spark life. Even with billions of galaxies, there could be so many variables as to make the probability so minute it is impossible.

Now, I was crap at maths and probability, so correct me if I'm wrong. lol

Scofflaw · 04-01-2007 01:21AM

Tim Robbins wrote:

I am one of the few atheists on this forum for example who isn't a Dawkins fan, I think some of his arguments are very poor.

Would you? I'd have said it was about 50/50. Up for a poll?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sangre · 04-01-2007 01:26AM

o1s1n wrote:

I do know what you're trying to say. It's an argument I'd use myself.

right distance, right orbit, right size, right tilt = LIFE!. Okay you're using four different variables there in a simplified way to get your point across. Probability wise, when you have billions of galaxies, it's going to happen at some point or another with only 4 variables. When you start adding extra variables, the probability reduces drastically. Who knows how many variables it would take to spark life. Even with billions of galaxies, there could be so many variables as to make the probability so minute it is impossible.

Now, I was crap at maths and probability, so correct me if I'm wrong. lol

As Scofflaw (I think) pointed out elsewhere, the odds of Earth being the only planet bearing life in the universe is roughly 1 in 343 quadrillion.

o1s1n · 04-01-2007 01:32AM

How could you possibly work that out without knowing all the different variables which are needed for a planet to spawn life? You wouldn't be able to work that out until you actually knew how life came about scientifically. Or maybe I'm just missing something. My poor head. I think its time for bed! I'd be interesting in knowing how that number was reached. Just googled it. Didnt find anything. Silly interweb.

Zombrex · 04-01-2007 01:49AM

Think of it this way. The odds of any one 12 card hand coming up in that particular order in Bridge are billions to one. But that doesn't mean you cannot play Bridge (why you would want to is another question!)

Everytime you deal out the cards some particular combination comes up. Every single time.

It is kinda natural to assume that "life" is the way it is on Earth now and that is it. But in reality "life" could have developed in a billion different ways. It only looks really lucky when you assume it had to develop the way it did and only the way it did.

All life is really, when you get down to it, is self replicating chains of molecules. Very complex and elaborate self replicating chains of molecules, sure, but ultimately that is what we are. We are sets of molecules that make more sets of molecules. It is highly likely that there are other self replicating chains of molecules out there in the universe that work and have evolved in completely different ways to the way we do.

And just like the Bridge hand, we ourselves could have ended up in a billion other combinations to the way we have ended up today. If you change a variable you don't necessarily destroy the process that makes self-replicating molecules (ie life) but you might alter it so you get very different self-replicating molecules (ie very different forms of life)

When you think that it is relatively easy to get molecules to begin to self-replicate (we have done it) it becomes clearer that life is not some huge fluke, but something that one would almost expect to have developed at least once somewhere in the universe. The odds that it would develop exactly like it had on Earth are very unlikely, just as a single bridge hand coming up is very unlikely. But it doesn't really matter if it didn't develop exactly like it did on Earth. It would still be life, just like a completely different bridge hand is still a bridge hand.

Tar.Aldarion · 04-01-2007 02:03AM

o1s1n wrote:

See, it's this "luck" that bothers me. Not only are we alive to witness this, our planet is just far enough/close enough from the sun so that we wont all be frazzled or freeze. Our axis just happens to be tilted at 23.5 degrees to give us seasons. I could think of many more such instances of luck but my brain is quite knackered at the moment to be honest. They could all have been formed by natural occurances, granted. But all of them together on one planet is a little odd.
I'm not saying it was a creator, I just think we have a frighteningly large amount of "luck"!

Why do you think life has to exactly like it is on Earth?
It could be silicon based, so where we would fry, others could live. If there was no water, ammonia could be a substitute. Life does not even require light. It's not that this planet happened to have everything we need exactly, it is that we evolved on this planet to use everything that is on it, carbon based, water being the solvent in which biochemical reactions take place.
Life is not a lot more than any self-replicating reaction, which could arise in a great many conditions and with various ingredients.
Look at the stars in the sky, thousands, billions, now know that 1 in 3 of those planets you see has planets surrounding it, I don't think it is so improbable as to be hard to believe that life exists outside of earth.

As of dec 06 there have only been 209 planets found out of our solar system, that's all. This has been found already
http://planet.iap.fr/OB05390.news.html
There are about 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone, multiply that by an estimated 125 billion galaxies in the universe. Now imagine how many planets there is in the universe. Now, we have only discovered about 200, and already one not too disimilar to Earth. although, I doubt it could support life.
I think that other life could be lucky too.

robindch · 04-01-2007 02:11AM

> That chess analogy should be used much much more often - it's certainly
> the first time I've ever heard it, and it's a brilliantly simple summary.

I've posted it a couple of times before, at least on the creation thread, so it must have sunk beneath the waves of foaming two-cent crud which slosh about there!

The chess analogy belongs, I believe, to Richard Feynman and there's a documentary from 1982, or thereabouts, in which he brings it up. The explanation begins at 27m20s in this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6586235597476141009

BTW, any suggestions as to why google's serving up a link to "Sexy Women humping a dryer" as the next best match to Feynman?

Zillah · 04-01-2007 06:52AM

I love this forum. Its one of the few forums where by the end of a controvertial thread I no longer need to laboriously explain to everyone why they're wrong

Zombrex · 04-01-2007 10:25AM

robindch wrote:

BTW, any suggestions as to why google's serving up a link to "Sexy Women humping a dryer" as the next best match to Feynman?

Because its (still kinda) Christmas....?

[sound of wicknight unzipping]

Dades · 04-01-2007 11:18AM

o1s1n wrote:

How could you possibly work that out without knowing all the different variables which are needed for a planet to spawn life?

I'm inclined to agree. But if you haven't before, have a read about the Drake Equation. Very speculative but thought-provoking nonetheless.

robindch wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6586235597476141009

BTW, any suggestions as to why google's serving up a link to "Sexy Women humping a dryer" as the next best match to Feynman?

Dammit I've only time to watch one of those videos.
Is that a Zanussi?

Scofflaw · 04-01-2007 12:31PM

The Atheist wrote:

I'm inclined to agree. But if you haven't before, have a read about the Drake Equation. Very speculative but thought-provoking nonetheless.

That's what I based the calculations on - the short form of the Drake Equation, which contains the less speculative bits. As the planet-hunting search gets into swing, a lot of the terms in that part of the equation are firming up - it's the bits dealing with lifespans of civilisations etc that are complete guesswork.

I can't find the post, which is a shame, because it was a bit of a tour de force of back-of-the-envelope-in-the-pub calculation, if I do say so myself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah · 04-01-2007 12:46PM

Scofflaw wrote:

As the planet-hunting search gets into swing

That reminds me. What are they using to find planets these days? Last I heard the two methods were the sun wobble caused by orbiting planets (needs big assed Jupiter type planets) and minor drop in star brightness at regular intervals as a planet intervenes between us and it, again, needs big ass planets and a very lucky orbit.

This is going on half remembered documentaries from years ago, I assume theres better methods employed now?

Zombrex · 04-01-2007 01:41PM

Zillah wrote:

That reminds me. What are they using to find planets these days?

Dolphins last I heard .....

Oh yeah, and this thing

http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/news/corotMission.cfm

Scofflaw · 04-01-2007 02:35PM

Zillah wrote:

That reminds me. What are they using to find planets these days? Last I heard the two methods were the sun wobble caused by orbiting planets (needs big assed Jupiter type planets) and minor drop in star brightness at regular intervals as a planet intervenes between us and it, again, needs big ass planets and a very lucky orbit.

This is going on half remembered documentaries from years ago, I assume theres better methods employed now?

Same basic techniques, I think, with better sensitivity. They reckon on being able to detect Earth-sized planets for some stars.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Anyone see that article in the Irish Independent on Friday?

Comments