Xaxyx

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but it is sounding to me like you have relegated God down to my feelings and nothing more. I was speaking about your God's feelings, actually. Sorry to confuse the point. And my response, as I'm sure you're expecting, is to note that this form of argumentation does not avail me. Just as I would never deign to attempt to draw you into a conclusion for which I was unable to share my evidence. But what if you had something that made you believe God was real? That's my point entirely. Nothing can "make me believe" that an object exists -- or does not exist. I draw conclusions based on evidence. Only a conclusion based on evidence will result in my adopting a belief in the existence of anything -- from gods to cats to jelly beans. Mind you, I'm not especially stubborn about it, for the most part. I'm willing to go out on a limb now and again. If you mail me a picture of your cat, I tend to feel confident enough in that evidence to adopt a belief in the existence of your cat. I have no reason to suspect that the evidence in hand is falsified, or tainted. But when it comes to life-altering topics like gods, I'll tend to be a bit more reserved in my judgment, until all the facts are on the table. It's interesting to me that you chose that example. I often cite that movie as an excellent demonstration of the genuine devotion to objectivity that a true scientist wields. When the main character found herself sitting before the Senate inquiry, she was asked, bluntly, if it was possible that she imagined the whole thing. Her reply? Yes! Yes, it was possible that she imagined it. Yes, she lacked any evidence whatsoever to substantiate her claim. Objectivity compelled her to admit that she's got no leg to stand on. So, no, if I were in that position, I would not make a knowledge claim. I would not claim to know that the events actually occurred. Knowledge claims require evidence. I have none. Science is the tool I use to distinguish between reality and fantasy, between the actual and the imagined. Science grounds me. It gives me a frame of reference. Without science, the world would exist only in my mind's eye. Without that foundation, I wouldn't be able to form any sort of meaningful worldview for myself. My capacity to form opinions, to weigh ethics, to philosophize, all ultimately rely upon my fundamental capacity to distinguish between what I can know, and what I can only believe.

This person isn't saying it's foolish to ask the question. He's saying that the question can't be answered meaningfully. He's not saying it very well, but that's the point he's driving at. Questions of similar ilk might include, "What's outside of the universe?" or "What happened before the Big Bang?" As we lack a frame of reference to even describe these environments or continuums or what-have-you, it's not possible to answer them meaningfully. But that doesn't ever preclude us from asking. Yes it does. The result is a singularity. The most compact, the most compressed, the most super-duperest of squished-up, black-holesque material. There's many things in science that make sense, from an abstract perspective, even if those things end up being counterintuitive relative to how we perceive the world. Looking up into the sky, it would seem perfectly plausible to me that the sun revolves around the Earth, and unnatural to think the reverse. Yet science would indicate otherwise. Peering through a telescope, stars seem tiny and in configurations relative to their location. Science instead holds that they're enormous, as big or bigger than our sun; and nowhere near one another, despite our cutesy constellations. Indeed, when we look up into the sky, we're not even looking at the stars. We're looking at light emitted by those stars thousands upon thousands of years ago. Counterintuitive indeed. But nevertheless, demonstrable, by scientific inquiry. Sounds like fun to me. Perhaps we simply mean different things when we use the word "envision". To me, if one is capable of describing something, then one must necessarily be capable of envisioning it. That's different from "believe," i.e., actually accept the premise as a possibility. I can envision flying, purple unicorns. I don't believe that they exist, or even can exist. And an example of such a movie would be. . . ???? Off the top of my head... Space Cowboys wasn't completely outlandish.

Thank you. I'm hardly unique, though. I know plenty of my ilk who'll readily make the same admission. Not every atheist is an extremist. That seems perfectly plausible to me. Your God is defined as a living, thinking and feeling being. Like any other living, thinking and feeling being, God's thoughts would be God's own. I could not discover them using logic or reason. Again, this is no different than how anyone might describe their relationship with one's spouse. Or one's best friend. Or one's pet cat. I would have no place questioning how you feel about each of these beings. And I would have no place questioning how you acquire a faith in how they feel about you. Whereas, whenever I discover a conflict between science and my heart, I find myself compelled to follow the science. To do otherwise, for me, would be to deny reality. It would feel as though I were discarding sanity, embracing pure and unadulturated compulsion. Indeed: it is not even a choice, for me. I lack the capacity to ignore science in favor of my own preferences and desires. My faith, however passionate and devout, must always bend to the winds of science. Yet here I am, implanting myself in a social gathering of mixed people, explicitly going out of my way to discuss science. Hmm! As aforementioned, it's necessary for me to be capable of knowing when faith is appropriate and when science must win out. It's an intrinsic part of my worldview to be able, at all times, to know if my faith-based opinions must be set aside for my science-based conclusions. Science always wins, in my eyes. To do any less would unravel me. As much as I would like to trust in my fellow man, for instance, if there's ten dollars missing from my wallet, and that person over there was the only person within ten feet of my wallet in the last hour and a half, and there's a video tape of him opening my wallet and looking inside, and he just bought himself a hot dog with a ten dollar bill that looks suspiciously like the one I had in my wallet, then I am compelled by the evidence to draw the rational, reasonable conclusion that he stole my ten bucks. This rational, reasonable conclusion, based solely on demonstrable, sufficiently conclusive evidence, supersedes my desire to retain a faith in this person's honesty and integrity. I cannot ignore the evidence. I cannot forget the evidence. I cannot bent and contort the significance of the evidence in my mind until I've rationalized away what would otherwise be an inexorable conclusion. My desires in this matter are irrelevant; the facts at hand win out. This same thought process applies when speaking of gods in general, even your God in particular. You make the claim that your God loves me. Okay. I can't reasonably deny that claim, of its own accord, just as I couldn't deny if you said that your cat loves me, no matter how friendly your may claim your cat to be. But before I could consider adopting a faith in the love for me of either your cat or your God, I would first need it demonstrated to me that these beings actually exist. Imaginary cats can't love; but receiving emails of pictures of your cat would do much to put those concerns to rest. Actually meeting your cat in person would dismiss them entirely. Then, and only then, could I begin entertaining the notion of holding a faith in your cat's love for me. Nice kitty. Thus, having a faith of any sort in the feelings of other beings, gods or not, must always, for me, be preceded by a demonstration of the existence of such beings. That's not the sort of thing I'm capable of taking "on faith", as it were. I have faith that my significant other loves me. I can't demonstrate it; but I'm comfortable with that. I can, however, demonstrate that my significant other actually exists, just by poking with my finger. Those two concepts are worlds apart, for me. And I am careful to never, ever cross them.

Yet the experts seem to not want to venture down this path. I'm not sure you it is you're referring to as "experts". An objective scientist is always interested in new facts, new hypotheses, new ideas. Even in areas of science in which we're pretty sure we have all of our facts straight. I for one am delighted to be proven wrong about something. That means that I had my facts wrong previously; but now I have an accurate grasp. When that occurs, I experience gratitude, not resentment. Rubbish, I say. The only foolish question is the question that goes unasked. You tell that so-called scientist that I'm revoking his pocket protector! But I was talking about matter. As was I. Only matter has mass. The space that matter occupies, however, is not necessarily related to its mass. Atoms can be compressed into staggeringly small spaces. Compress carbon enough, and it reformed into a denser crystal matrix -- the diamond. Compress hydrogen enough, and it gets crushed into helium in an intense, energy-releasing fusion reaction; that's how the sun works. That doesn't seem hard to envision. I can envision that right now. I daresay you envisioned it when you wrote that sentence. Modeling it, on the other hand, may prove vastly more difficult. We've just now begun to experiment with colliding particles and building nuclear fusion generators and the like. Science has a long, long way to go before exploring impressive stuff like creating entire universes. That is correct, once again demonstrating that matter's size and shape is not necessarily related to its mass. I do very much prefer science fiction movies that at least try to mimic real life science in some fashion. It makes the scene that much more suspenseful.

My apologies if I was seemingly evasive. I didn't understand I was being asked about my credentials. You asked about my 'bailiwick'; that to me seemed to mean an area of interest, rather than an area of expertise. So, now that I better understand the question, I'll be... purposefully evasive! I respectfully decline to answer, as I prefer anonymity with regards to my background and experience. My apologies. If, as alluded, my refusal to provide my credentials nullifies our ability to converse, then I regret that very much. But my stance is firm.

I found that to be an excellent analogy; thank you. I for one do not value logic and reason above all else. I find them valuable, and I rely upon them when appropriate. But there is much more to me than rationality. I am a human being, and human beings are emotional creatures. I feel love, passion, devotion. I experience desire, lust, craving. I encounter anger, hatred, fury. I am glad for all of these things. I need all of these things. They, too, are a part of me. Without them, I would not be human. And I possess faith as well. I'm fully capable of assuming things about the world that I cannot rationally demonstrate. I have faith that those who I love do indeed love me in return. I have faith that I am of sound mind and principle and can trust my own instincts and beliefs. I have faith that I will be capable of keeping my promises, that others will keep their promises to me. This, too, is part of who and what I am. What's most important to me, what's most valuable to me, is to be capable of distinguishing between these various ideas, and having the wisdom to know when to apply which. I would never, for example, attempt to logically demonstrate, using available scientific evidence, that my significant other is in love with me. The concept is absurd. Sure, I can take a pulse, measure a temperature. But I cannot read minds -- or hearts. I must simply trust; I must simply have faith. No other tool avails me. Conversely, I would not attempt to hold faith in any scientific analysis. You claim that two times three is six? Demonstrate this for me. I won't just take your word for it. I won't just have faith in your powers of mathematics. You will present your evidence; and I will draw a rational, reasonable, logical conclusion from this evidence, if I can. And nothing more. And I would expect the same in kind. I would hope that my significant other has faith in my love. And I would hope that my significant other would double-check my math with a calculator. And I'd expect you to do the same, in any scientific discussions we might have. This is the defining distinction, for me, between the applicability of faith and reason. And that distinction is of paramount importance. Weigh faith with the heart; science with the mind. And never mix the two.

Really? That's fascinating. I'll have to look into that. Woah there, hold your horses -- er, dinosaurs. I don't recall asserting that "having one or two bird-like qualities makes you a bird." In fact, I'm pretty sure we were talking about transitional animals. Transitional, as in, not quite the former, and not quite the latter. Having a few similar qualities doesn't mean squat, of its own accord. Seeing a single dinosaur with a few feathers doesn't immediately cause us to be able to draw the conclusion that they're related to birds. That would be poor science. What it does, however, is allow us to start asking questions, start analyzing fossilized remains and seeing if a pattern of relationship can be conclusively drawn. Scientists are already working to uncover the genome of a vast variety of animals. Hopefully, they'll eventually be able to gather suitable genetic specimens of dinosaurs and other ancient creatures in order to better establish the evolutionary chain. But this will take some time. Why wouldn't it? Species can evolve without becoming extinct. Indeed: this would be expected. Consider two groups of the same animal living in two different valleys. Over the course of thousands of years, one group could gradually adapt certain traits that the other group did not. Eventually, one group would hardly resemble the other. Yet they both exist simultaneously. There are many examples of this. For instance, many insect species that exist today are very similar they were millions of years ago. Comparison to fossilized remains confirms this. Many bacteria have existed for hundreds of millions of years in the same form that they exist in right now. It is poor science to assume that this evidence does not exist. I've given you one example, and you've already drawn a conclusion? I find that disappointing. I would hope for more objectivity. Indeed: I am willing to patiently show you as many examples of evidence substantiating evolutionary theory as you would care to accept. I certainly hope your patience hasn't worn down already. You seem to have made an assumption about me, so I feel it's important that I clarify this to the best of my ability. I am not interested in interfering with your faith in your god. I am respectful of your beliefs. You can believe whatever you want. Indeed, I vehemently defend the right of the faithful to retain and exercise their beliefs whenever they see fit. Knock yourself out. All I've stopped by to do is talk about science. Present evidence. Draw conclusions from that evidence. Whether or not that conflicts with your faith is, if I may be carefully blunt, not my concern. Your faith is your own. If you can believe that much about my intentions, then please say so, and we can continue our rational discourse on evolutionary evidence. If you cannot, then I doubt there would be much point in our discussions, as you would be consistently suspicious of my supposed ulterior motives. Again, the choice is yours.

I'm sorry Fresno, but I don't understand. Did you have a question for me?

We don't know. The coolest thing about science is that the fact that there's always some new area to explore. The more we learn, a chemistry teacher once sagely declared to me, the more we discover that there is to learn. And so it is with the field of cosmology. We haven't the slightest idea where all this matter "came from". Some folks question whether it had to come from anywhere at all. The Law of Conservation of Matter, which you reference, does indeed preclude the creation or destruction of matter. But it only does so within the universe itself. Actually forming an entire universe is another matter entirely (if you'll pardon the pun). It's an area that science has yet to explore, mainly because we lack a frame of reference, as well as suitable tools, to do anything more than haphazardly throw around conjectures. So, I honestly haven't the foggiest notion where all of this stuff came from. Beats me. And no scientist can genuinely claim to be capable of providing any reasonable, meaningful evidence allowing him to draw any conclusions regarding it either. This admission does not concern me in the slightest. There's plenty of stuff we don't know. And I am thankful; I love to learn. Herein I can comment intelligently. The size of an object is not necessarily related to its mass. These are wholly distinct concepts. It is possible to compress tremendous amounts of material into a small space. Such objects exist in space. They have become so heavy, so dense, that the light that they omit gets sucked back into their own gravity wells. Thus, they are referred to as "black holes" -- mainly because for a long time, the only way to detect them is to look for empty patches of sky with a telescope. Conversely, if you put a marshmallow into a vacuum chamber and suck most of the air out, it will balloon into a giant-sized mega-marshmallow. It still weighs the same, though.

To quote Christopher Lloyd, actually I'm a student of all the sciences.

In my opinion, being a slave devalues a slave, insofar as that it lowers him from being a man, to being a pet. Again, much like the family pet. Do you feel it ethical to treat a human being like you would treat an animal?

Whether or not you feel you're qualified to converse with me is up to you. All I require of you is patience and an open mind. I'll proceed at whatever pace you desire, and address any topics that interest you. Being a scientist, it is my honor and privilege to guide you in research beyond what you already understand. The Big Bang Theory is a theory regarding the formation of the universe itself. In the beginning -- as it were -- a huge explosion occurred; particles flew in all directions; some gathered to form stars and black holes; these all eventually coalesced into galaxies. Some bits were too small to be stars and became planets, trapped in the gravity wells of stars. Billions of years later, the surface of the Earth cooled, water condensed to form oceans. That sort of thing. That whole bit has no direct correlation with ambiogenesis, or evolution. Ambiogenesis theory has to do with how the earliest forms of life come to exist on a planet. And evolutionary theory has to do with the changing characteristics of species over long periods of time in particular areas (or the planet as a whole). Who was it who claimed to be capable of calculating the "odds" of the Big Bang, by the way? That whole thing sounds rather odd to me. A probability claim belies a comprehension of the circumstances, and events like oh, say, forming an entire universe seem a bit out of the grasp of the average scientist, even a cosmologist. I'd be curious to know where it originated.

And as I thought I was very careful to note, Ockham's Razor is not a reason to draw a conclusion. It is only a recommendation, a time-saver -- a hunch. Hunches and shortcuts are not scientific methods. Gathering and analyzing evidence, and drawing a conclusion from that evidence, is science, irrespective of whether the "simple" or "complex" answer turns out to be the right one. Indeed, if the evidence leads invariably to a conclusion, however seemingly unlikely, then that, and that alone, is the conclusion that can be drawn, and no other. Those sure do sound like long odds. Crazily long odds. But our opinion of the likelihood of an event has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it occurred. Nevertheless, let's explore the notion a bit, shall we? Let's go with 1 / 10^99, for lack of a better number. That's the "odds" of ambiogenesis occurring at any given moment? What time span are we talking about? The Earth's 4.54 billion years old. That's a lot of dice rolling. And the Earth's a big place. 500 million square kilometers just on the surface. 1.37 billion cubic kilometers of ocean water. Furthermore, Earth is not the only planet in the universe. This galaxy alone has billions of stars in it, many of which have planets of their own. And there's plenty of galaxies out there -- so many, in fact, that we've no way at the moment of counting them, or even seeing many of them. So let's compare: 1 / 10^99, to the total volume of the oceans of all the water-bearing worlds in all the galaxies in all the universe over the billions of years that these galaxies have existed. Those odds are looking less and less slim by the moment. But once again, whether or not you or I think the odds are good or the odds are not good, is wholly irrelevant to the analysis of evidence and the drawing of conclusions. Ockham's Razor notwithstanding.

The Ockham's Razor principle is not a scientific method for determining the legitimacy of a conclusion. It is merely a recommendation: when trying to pick a hypothesis to test, save some time, and test the simplest one first; that's usually going to turn out to be a winner. Usually; but not always. So, no, any self-proclaimed scientist who asserts that any idea can be disproved because it is too simple or too complex is full of hooey. Conclusions are drawn from evidence -- wherever that evidence points. And that's the bottom line, for any scientist. Now, given all that: in my opinion, as it happens, I feel in fact that evolution is the "simpler" explanation for life, the universe, and everything. I mean, really: eight thousand species of beetles? It'd have taken more than six days just to name them all...

I would be more than happy to produce such evidence for you. We can then analyze such creatures and determine for ourselves if they qualify as what you would term as a "transition animal". Do you have any particular preference? From fish to amphibian? From dinosaur to bird? From great ape to Neanderthal? Actually, unless you object, I'm going to go with dinosaurs to birds. Dinosaurs are just lots of fun for everyone! Allow me to introduce you to the Theropod, a bipedal saurischian dinosaur. The name translates to "beast feet". Probably not much a dancer, this fellow. As their fossils show, Theropod looked much like your typical large, angry, two-footed dinosaur. Growl, stomp. But they laid eggs, just like birds. They even brooded (sat on) their eggs, just like birds. And they had feathers, just like birds. Feathers? On a dinosaur?! You betcha. Feathers, it is believed, were originally evolved as a source of warmth in cold weather, much like fur serves today's mammals. It was only after a long period of time and many evolutionary changes that feathers were able to serve the purposes of flight. Consider how many species of flightless birds there are, as compared to their flying cousins. Obviously, dropping one wacky dinosaur in your lap won't suffice -- nor should it! I'm not sure which avenue you'd like to follow next, though, so I'll leave that choice up to you. Want to research this particular species with me some more? Look at some other dinosaurs? See transitional creatures from other time periods? Look at how all of this information on dinosaurs and other long-lost critters is gathered, categorized, analyzed? Any angle is fine by me. This is a form of the Natural Law Fallacy. The answer, in this case, is yes, such a wonderful and beautiful place -- and it truly is both wondrous and beautiful -- could indeed have come out without intelligent direction. Acknowledging this diminishes neither the wonder nor beauty for me.