Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?

Now wait a second -- you're moving from science to history!

This is getting silly. My point, as I've made clear, is that you accept the testimony of people you haven't met about things you haven't seen in lots of fields, from astronomy to history to medicine. And then you pretend that evolution is somehow unique in asking you to do that. (Although I agree the broken leg may not have been the best example.)

Seriously, if someone said to you "There are thousands of well educated PhD Bible Scholars who have studied the Bible for years who are definitely "experts" and all say that it's true -- all you have to do is believe it " -- would you say that was scientific? Nope. And how is having to believe in ASBE/AFN any different?

Because the people studying evolution (I'm not accepting your attempt to yoke it to "AFN," by the way) can tell me what independently verifiable and verified evidence they base their conclusion on. Let me know when the Bible scholars can do that.

Just why do you think this idea -- of widespread less-then-full-honesty-among-scientists is so unlikely?

At least two reasons: first, no one has ever made a deathbed confession or had an attack of conscience and confessed to being part of this vast conspiracy. No one has described how the High Priests of the Temple of Darwin came to them in the middle of the night and made them swear their oath of fealty. Conspiracies don't generally keep their secrets for 150 years. Second, because of a different aspect of human nature: the desire for recognition. You realize that the scientist who comes up with the replacement for the theory of evolution will be as famous as Darwin, right? You don't think that would ever outweigh their desire to keep the secret?

- if you're trying to say my assumptions about your theological beliefs are wrong then for pitty's sake say so!

Why? They're irrelevant to what we're discussing, and none of your business. You're the one who made the claim that evolutionists are atheists devoted to a belief that everything happened by itself. It's not up to me to prove you wrong.

The WP entry is pretty clear that the moths are an example of how natural selection works, not an example of speciation. "Such changes" refers to changes in color, which can lead to speciation. But as that entry says,

This might lead to the erroneous belief that speciation was involved in the observed evolution of the peppered moth. This is not the case; individuals of each morph interbreed and produce fertile offspring with individuals of all other morphs; hence there is only one peppered moth species.
By contrast, different subspecies of the same species can theoretically interbreed with one another and will produce fully fertile and healthy offspring but in practice do not, as they live in different regions or reproduce in different seasons. Full-fledged species are either unable to produce fertile and healthy offspring, or do not recognize each other's courtship signals, or both.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is an agenda to push a worldview.

That is your prejudice and your assumption. Don't cite the three obvious examples of people who do have an agenda to push a worldview--you're claiming this to be true of thousands of people, in different countries, speaking different languages, following different religions. The only evidence for this vast conspiracy is in your own head.

Mrjesse has already admitted that the apparent position and the actual position are different, which was the whole disagreement to begin with.

That certainly was not the whole disagreement to begin with.

Said LeGrande: when you look at the Sun, you are seeing it about 7 minutes behind where it actually is, but if you had a sensitive gravity sensor where would it point? At the sun you see or 7 minutes ahead of the sun you see?
And he said:

The suns actual position and gravitational position do line up. The apparent position doesn't though, it is off by 2.1 degrees like you indicated.

and said:

LOL The 2.1 degrees is is exactly related to the light-time correction and the distance of the earth from the the sun. If the Sun was closer the angle would be smaller, and if the sun was further away the angle would be larger.

Now it is true that in the beginning I did not know about the ~20 arcseconds of stellar aberration. My point was that LeGrande's claim of 2.1 degrees was wrong, as were his claimed reason for the 2.1 degrees.

If we only consider the reasons that LeGrande gave -- the distance to the sun and the rotational rate of the earth -- the sun is exactly where it appears -- at least close enough for government work. In other words, if we consider only LeGrande's alleged causes of apparent angular displacement, then the sun's not displaced at all. It is slightly displaced for other reasons, but none of which are LeGrande's reasons.

So, Legrande: you clearly say that the apparent position is off by 2.1 degrees (and since you specify no time period, the reader must assume that you're talking about any instant) and that if the sun was farther the angular displacement would be greater - so why not do the same math for Pluto or an imaginary planet 12-light hours away?

Because nobody in their right mind can imagine a planet in the east appearing in the west, or having the gravitational pull be east while the planet appears in the west.

-Jese

My position from the beginning has been that the apparent position is different from the actual position. I thought it was a simple concept, but I was wrong : (

Now the discussion has morphed almost beyond recognition.

No you are lying Fichori. My claim was that the actual position is not the same as the apparent position. It was mrjesse who was computing the actual angles.

Sorry LeGrande, you made TWO claims -- one was that the sun wasn't where it appeared to be, and the other was that it was apparently 2.1 degrees behind it's actual position for an observer on earth at ant instant in time.

As soon as I learned about Stellar Aberration and the famed ~20 arcseconds, I have freely and happily granted that the sun is not exactly where it appears. On that argument you won -- the data backed you up! I have over and over admitted or more correctly stated cheerfully that the sun is apparently displaced about 20 arcseconds. That argument is done!

But that doesn't remove the fact that you made the other argument - about 2.1 degrees - and that it was wrong! Just because you make one claim that is true (even if the reason you attributed it to was completely wrong) doesn't mean any other statements you make are true!

How else can I make that clear? I'm not arguing that the sun isn't apparently displaced by ~20 arcseconds due to stellar aberration! That one's done! I'm arguing that the sun is NOT displaced by 2.1 degrees -- or any other similar amount due to your claimed reason.

So why not grow up and quit fussing about the arguments you already won and go onto the ones that we don't agree on?

-Jesse

If we only consider the reasons that LeGrande gave -- the distance to the sun and the rotational rate of the earth -- the sun is exactly where it appears -- at least close enough for government work. In other words, if we consider only LeGrande's alleged causes of apparent angular displacement, then the sun's not displaced at all. It is slightly displaced for other reasons, but none of which are LeGrande's reasons.

Are you asserting that if you go out at Noon and point a transit directly at the center of the Suns light that the Sun is exactly where it appears to be i.e. in other words could you draw a straight line from the center of the earth through you to the center of the sun? Or in other words if you shot a rifle (that fired an instantaneous bullet) that it would hit the center of the Sun? Or would you have to lead the Sun a little to compensate for the fact that it took the light about 8.3 minutes to get from the Sun to your eyes?

Do you understand that you are under constant acceleration?

I think that’s a fairly good summary though I haven’t read through this entire sub-thread.

Threre is displacement of the measured position of the sun due to rotation of the earth (Diurnal aberration) but apparently it’s much smaller than the effect due to the earth’s orbit around the sun (Annual aberration).

” Its effect is much smaller than that of annual aberration, and is only 0”.32 in the case of an observer at the equator, where the rotational velocity is greatest.”

This is getting silly. My point, as I've made clear, is that you accept the testimony of people you haven't met about things you haven't seen in lots of fields, from astronomy to history to medicine. And then you pretend that evolution is somehow unique in asking you to do that.

I do not accept as scientific fact the testimony of people. That's called faith. Testimony of people is nice when it shows me how to go do the experiment myself so it can then rise to the level of science for me.

But my point is that for the average person, ASBE and AFN will never amount to anything more then a faith or a belief! And that's still religion -- regardless of whether they are correct or not in their faith and belief.

Because the people studying evolution can tell me what independently verifiable and verified evidence they base their conclusion on. Let me know when the Bible scholars can do that.

Tell me a little about the people studying evolution and what they've told you, and how you came to trust them with such great depth that you feel that your belief in ASBE is really the fact of ASBE?

(I'm not accepting your attempt to yoke it to "AFN," by the way)

Are you saying that you don't believe that all came from nothing? Well I can find you lots of experts who say that such is the case.

At least two reasons: first, no one has ever made a deathbed confession or had an attack of conscience and confessed to being part of this vast conspiracy.

yeah, just like no bank robber has ever had a deathbed confession and confessed to being part of a thousand man conspiracy to rob banks. They are all doing the same thing individually because that's what they all want to do.

No one has described how the High Priests of the Temple of Darwin came to them in the middle of the night and made them swear their oath of fealty. Conspiracies don't generally keep their secrets for 150 years.

Actually, I haven't yet seen Expelled, the movie. But from what I can tell, professors are pressured to not question ASBE, and some may have even been fired for it. And the ridicule I've seen aimed at those who question ASBE even here on FR and all over the net suggests to me that my suspicions aren't that far off. By the way, have you seen Expelled the Movie?

Second, because of a different aspect of human nature: the desire for recognition. You realize that the scientist who comes up with the replacement for the theory of evolution will be as famous as Darwin, right? You don't think that would ever outweigh their desire to keep the secret?

Famous like Darwin? well but what if instead they became famous like Behe or Flew or any other scientist who has questioned ASBE or AFN? Remember, being correct is not always popular -- and fame is directly related to popularity. I don't know if you knew any of that. The WP entry is pretty clear that the moths are an example of how natural selection works, not an example of speciation. "Such changes" refers to changes in color, which can lead to speciation.

Don't you mean "changes in ratio of color in the population?" Did not both colors exist before? I don't care how many times you change from mostly white to mostly black and back to mostly white -- do it until the cows come home - I don't care - but it's just a change in ratio between two already existing colors -- and that is not going to lead to new species!

That is your prejudice and your assumption. Don't cite the three obvious examples of people who do have an agenda to push a worldview--you're claiming this to be true of thousands of people, in different countries, speaking different languages, following different religions. The only evidence for this vast conspiracy is in your own head.

You keep twisting what I say. There does not have to be a vast conspiracy in order for lots of people to all do the same thing for the same reason. And why can't I cite the obvious examples around me of people who do have an agenda to push a worldview? What makes scientists somehow immune to that which is common to mankind? I look around me and see that a high percentage of people lie, cheat, do their own thing at the expense of others, and so on and so forth. Scientists are people too, you know! Why should I have some faith in their integrity beyond that which is common to mankind?

You never did answer my question about the experts who study ASBE -- what makes an expert? are you an expert? Do you know an expert? what makes you or them an expert?

-Jesse

Are you asserting that if you go out at Noon and point a transit directly at the center of the Suns light that the Sun is exactly where it appears to be i.e. in other words could you draw a straight line from the center of the earth through you to the center of the sun? Or in other words if you shot a rifle (that fired an instantaneous bullet) that it would hit the center of the Sun? Or would you have to lead the Sun a little to compensate for the fact that it took the light about 8.3 minutes to get from the Sun to your eyes?

Do you understand that you are under constant acceleration?

LeGrande, You're totally skirting around the issue!

but for those of you who don't know my view on the apparent position of the sun -- it is that the sun's position appears about 20 arcseconds ahead (compared to the direction of transverse velocity of the observer) of where it is due to Stellar Aberration.

Now please -- deal with the issues. If the sun was 12 light hours away, would it's gravitational pull be one way while it's apparent position at an instant to an observer on the earth would be the other way?

-Jesse

So what's the verdict? Am I crazy or is LeGrande? :-)

mrjesse: I think and certainly hope that neither you nor LeGrande are crazy in the true clinical sense of that term ;)>

As far as the arguments going back and forth between you two (and Fichori) about the apparent position and the actual position of the Sun, 2.1, stellar aberration, etc., I’m going with TrevorSnowsrap’s answer :)> *

As far as this being relevant to the topic of the original post – Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?; it isn’t!

I have a background in corporate accounting specializing in payroll, payroll taxation, accounts payable and more recently in HR and benefits database design, integration and in data audit and data analysis.

My previous employer was a pharmaceutical company working on cutting edge treatments for a deadly form of brain cancer – Glioblastoma multiforme.

In my accounting capacity I worked on a daily basis with many brilliant scientists recruited from all around the world for their expertise; biologists, biochemists, chemists and manufacturing and QA engineers. I often had to help these highly educated folks with their payroll, payroll tax, time sheets, purchase orders, requisitions forms and budget questions. It was sometimes frustrating to me how people so brilliant seemed so stupid to me (in my opinion) about things that just came second nature to me.

But just because they needed my help as an expert in my area of expertise, didn’t mean that they were not experts in theirs or that they could have stepped into my job any more than I could have took their place in the lab. Heck, even my immediate and higher up supervisors in the Finance department including all the way up to the CFO; folks with CPA’s and MBA’s didn’t understand and didn’t have the knowledge that I did about payroll and accounts payable. None of them could have run a payroll, filed all the various returns, made the correct journal entries or knew how to match an invoice to a purchase order and cut a check. But then again I didn’t know or have the expertise or background in SEC rules and the higher level accounting principals to be qualified to be the CFO.

Before working at the pharmaceutical company, I worked with a CPA and IT consultant who helped small business and self employed individuals with their tax returns, day to day accounting and computer needs. I worked with some small business clients; auto mechanics, construction contractors, restaurateurs and doctors in private practice, who didn’t know a debit from a credit or anything about basic accounting, how to file a tax return or how to upgrade a computer or install, setup and maintain a simple accounting system, but just because I did, that didn’t make me able to repair my own car, build my own house, run a restaurant or diagnose and treat illnesses.

So what is my point – you may ask?

Glad to answer.

I’m not a physicist, an astronomer, a mathematician, a biologist, a geologist nor am I an auto mechanic or a theology major or pastor or priest.

But I am by my nature and training, very analytical.

And in analyzing all the various augments for and against evolution; a young earth (6,000 to 10,000 years old) vs. a 4.5 billion old earth, I have to go with overwhelming consensus of the scientific experts in their fields. So yes, I accept that evolution took place and continues to take place and that YEC is a theological debate and not a scientific one.

In the end, it all comes down to what we choose to “believe”. I for one “believe” in the “theory” of gravity; otherwise I might try to test that “theory” by taking a leap from the roof of my house.

But if I’m injured in that “leap of faith”, my hope is that I’m first taken to a hospital where I can be treated by the medical professionals knowledgeable in their field then my second is to hope is to find someone knowledgeable in theology who can tell me about the spiritual folly of that “leap”.

Are you asserting that if you go out at Noon and point a transit directly at the center of the Suns light that the Sun is exactly where it appears to be i.e. in other words could you draw a straight line from the center of the earth through you to the center of the sun? Or in other words if you shot a rifle (that fired an instantaneous bullet) that it would hit the center of the Sun? Or would you have to lead the Sun a little to compensate for the fact that it took the light about 8.3 minutes to get from the Sun to your eyes?

LeGrande, You're totally skirting around the issue!

LOL That is precisely the issue. You are simply afraid to answer the question : )

but for those of you who don't know my view on the apparent position of the sun -- it is that the sun's position appears about 20 arcseconds ahead (compared to the direction of transverse velocity of the observer) of where it is due to Stellar Aberration.

Your misnamed Stellar Aberration (Annual aberration) is due to the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and has almost nothing to do with the the original question which is based on the rotation of the Earth, not its orbital velocity. Why won't you answer the question?

Now please -- deal with the issues. If the sun was 12 light hours away, would it's gravitational pull be one way while it's apparent position at an instant to an observer on the earth would be the other way?

Huh? You tell me to deal with the issue and then change the subject? Why are you moving the Sun out twice the radius of the Solar System, when you don't even understand the original point?

This is almost funny : ( Everyone is talking about different things.

Do you agree that an objects apparent position is not the same as its true position? That is what this whole debate is over.

Originally mrjesse and fichori believed that because the light from an object was continuous, its actual and apparent position were exactly the same.

“And in analyzing all the various augments for and against evolution; a young earth (6,000 to 10,000 years old) vs. a 4.5 billion old earth, I have to go with overwhelming consensus of the scientific experts in their fields. So yes, I accept that evolution took place and continues to take place and that YEC is a theological debate and not a scientific one.” [excerpt]

You have chosen to place your Faith in the consensus of people who agree with your opinion.

Young Earth Creation and Evolution are both theological subjects.

Neither is empirical science.

I would be possible to have a scientific debate on the age of the Earth, granted neither Evolution or Creation were brought up.

Evolution is nothing more than a consensus based on philosophical assumptions that are completely untestable.

With Evolution, the outcome is predetermined and any evidence that does not agree with the requisite outcome is discarded.

The methodology used for Evolution is not Empirical Science.

Methodological Naturalism must be used before Evolution will even start to hold up under scrutiny.

Evolution must simple be taken on Faith.

Consensus does not make it science.

I think that point was previously conceded and you are/were correct.

Young Earth Creation and Evolution are both theological subjects. Neither is empirical science.

I’m very glad to hear that you admit finally admit that YEC is a “theological subject” and not a scientific one. Congratulations!

But you are wrong about evolution vs Creationism as one is a belief based solely on the belief and on a particular interpretation of a spiritual text while the other is a scientific theory based on empirical evidence absent of spiritually or the acceptance of spiritually. Science itself is rather neutral as to the existence of God or the meaning of life, even if some scientists reject God and some other scientists, drawing the very same scientific conclusions are devout believers in God.

Consensus does not make it science.

Consensus among scientists may not make it “science” in your opinion and according to your belief system but it still makes it more scientific than your particular Biblical interpretation.

I only have to lurk on the FR religion threads to see that many very conservative believers in God and in Jesus often disagree with their interpretations of Scripture.

Please; give me just one Biblical reference that absolutely and irrefutably dates the age of the Earth or the universe at 6,000 or 10,000 years old.

If you can do that in the next 24 hours, empirically and absent of any “interpretation”, I will donate $20 to the Freep-A-Thon in your name. If you can’t then I challenge you to donate $20 dollars in my name.

I think that point was previously conceded and you are/were correct.

Thank you. Now I can get on with my life : )

“I’m very glad to hear that you admit finally admit that YEC is a “theological subject” and not a scientific one. Congratulations!” [excerpt]

I've never said otherwise.

Supernatural Creation by nature is a theological subject.
There is no reason that science cannot study the result of Supernatural Creation.

“But you are wrong about evolution vs Creationism as one is a belief based solely on the belief and on a particular interpretation of a spiritual text while the other is a scientific theory based on empirical evidence absent of spiritually or the acceptance of spiritually. Science itself is rather neutral as to the existence of God or the meaning of life, even if some scientists reject God and some other scientists, drawing the very same scientific conclusions are devout believers in God.” [excerpt]

While it may be true that Evolution is based on empirical evidence, it in its self is not empirical science because it discards any empirical evidence that does not agree with its philosophical assumptions.

Evolution will never be empirical science because it cannot be repeatedly tested.

“Consensus among scientists may not make it “science” in your opinion and according to your belief system but it still makes it more scientific than your particular Biblical interpretation.” [excerpt]

Consensus does equate empirical science.

It doesn't matter how many people agree about something, if it isn't repeatably testable, its not empirical science.

“I only have to lurk on the FR religion threads to see that many very conservative believers in God and in Jesus often disagree with their interpretations of Scripture.” [excerpt]

This isn't a religion thread in the Religion Forum.

We are discussing Evolutions complete lack of scientific merit.

“Please; give me just one Biblical reference that absolutely and irrefutably dates the age of the Earth or the universe at 6,000 or 10,000 years old.” [excerpt]

What does that have to do with empirical science?

“If you can do that in the next 24 hours, empirically and absent of any “interpretation”, I will donate $20 to the Freep-A-Thon in your name. If you can’t then I challenge you to donate $20 dollars in my name.” [excerpt]

You seem to be forgetting what empirical science is all about.

If you can empirically demonstrate that Evolution is even posible, I might consider dipping into my savings.

That means an experiment that everybody can do and repeatably get the same results as you.

“I think that point was previously conceded and you are/were correct.”
“Thank you. Now I can get on with my life : )”

Uh, LeGrande, your forgetting about the other little detail.

While you were right about the apparent and actual positions not being the same, you are dead wrong about them being 2.1° apart.

At least you have completely failed to demonstrate otherwise.

While you were right about the apparent and actual positions not being the same, you are dead wrong about them being 2.1° apart.

At least you have completely failed to demonstrate otherwise.

Then do this little experiment. Go outside on a sunny day at noon and pound a stake into the ground, so that there is no shadow. Then 8.3 minutes later pound another stake into the ground so that there is no shadow from it either and make it so that the points of the stakes that you drove in the ground meet each other. Measure the angle. If it isn't close to 2.1 degrees, I will publicly and humbly admit that I was wrong.

Will you do the same if it is close to 2.1 degrees?

Can you think of a better demonstration to prove or disprove the assertion?

==I’m very glad to hear that you admit finally admit that YEC is a “theological subject” and not a scientific one.

YEC is both a theological subject and a scientific subject, whereas the neo-Darwinian synthesis is now merely a theological subject, for it has been thoroughly refuted by science. Even the evolutionists are abandoning the HMS Beagle in search of a new theory of evolution.

“While you were right about the apparent and actual positions not being the same, you are dead wrong about them being 2.1° apart.

At least you have completely failed to demonstrate otherwise.”
“Then do this little experiment. Go outside on a sunny day at noon and pound a stake into the ground, so that there is no shadow. Then 8.3 minutes later pound another stake into the ground so that there is no shadow from it either and make it so that the points of the stakes that you drove in the ground meet each other. Measure the angle. If it isn't close to 2.1 degrees, I will publicly and humbly admit that I was wrong.

Will you do the same if it is close to 2.1 degrees?

Can you think of a better demonstration to prove or disprove the assertion?”

Your little experiment does not prove where the actual position of the Sun is.

It only proves that the Earth is either turning or being orbited.

You have yet to prove that there is a 2.1° difference between the actual(gravitational) and apparent(optical) position of the Sun.

You have already admitted that the optical(apparent) and gravitational(actual) positions are essentially the same for an observer on the north poll.

You have adamantly asserted that that this alleged 2.1° difference between the actual and observed position of the Sun is entirely due to the rotation of the Earth.

The only differences between the equator and the north poll are the surface speed and the transverse movement relative to the Sun.

What causes the 2.1°.
Surface speed or transverse movement.