Evidence for Special Creation, #2

[RufusAtticus]

Since the other thread has been off topic for a while, I'll ask the question again. Hopefully this version will actually generate some discussion.

Does any empirical evidence exist that would allow an objective observer, ignorant of biblical scripture, to conclude that life was specially created as separate types of organisms, within the last 15,000 years? If so, what is it?

When you answer, don't forget to provide references to the scientific literature in order to support the existance of your evidence and the interpretation.

So if (young earth) special creation is true, then someone should be able to provide empirical evidence for it. Any takers? The last thread didn't get much play. Will anything be different this time?

[Socratism]

Today @ 02:20 PM
RufusAtticus:
....
Does any empirical evidence exist that would allow an objective observer, ignorant of biblical scripture, to conclude that life was specially created as separate types of organisms, within the last 15,000 years? If so, what is it?

I think it is fair to say that to an ancient observer no obvious evidence exists outside of scripture that would lead to that conclusion. This is probably why God furnished the evidence as a revelation.


When you answer, don't forget to provide references to the scientific literature in order to support the existance of your evidence and the interpretation.

Since the scientific literature would not think that revelation from God is relevent, then we would not expect this evidence to appear in scientific journals.


So if (young earth) special creation is true, then someone should be able to provide empirical evidence for it. Any takers? The last thread didn't get much play. Will anything be different this time?

Once one realizes the truth then it can easily be seen to be true. However to do so one must separate the data part of the evidence from the interpretations given to the evidence by people who believe they must come up with a "naturalistic" explanation in order to be a scientist.

The best that can be done is to show that the evidence (not the interpretations of that evidence) is consistent with the revelation from God or at least that attempts to refute the revelation have been unsuccessful.

Because there is much evidence that can not be explained adequately by either creation or evolution concepts we must recognize that this is a "work in progress".

For me, the best evidence that Genesis is correct and evolution is false lies in the areas of genetics, biology, chemistry, geology and paleontology.

[TenDimensions]

With today's level of science, my guess is that people would cite the perceived "irreducible complexity" found at the smallest cellular functions.

Imagine if physicists thought that about the atom and decided that was proof of God's existence?

Other than irreducible complexity, I'm not sure what other physical evidence there would be to point to. At least not when discussing Creation.

[Socratism]

Today @ 05:08 PM
TenDimensions:

With today's level of science, my guess is that people would cite the perceived "irreducible complexity" found at the smallest cellular functions.

Imagine if physicists thought that about the atom and decided that was proof of God's existence?

Other than irreducible complexity, I'm not sure what other physical evidence there would be to point to. At least not when discussing Creation.


I feel that if creation is true then all of the evidence available to date should be consistent with that event.

But if evolution is true then all of the evidence should be consistent with that hypothesis.

Since all of the evidence is not consistent with the evolutionary hypothesis I decided to investigate the creation hypothesis, and so far I have not found any evidence that is not consistent with it.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 03:33 PM
Socratism:

I think it is fair to say that to an ancient observer no obvious evidence exists outside of scripture that would lead to that conclusion. This is probably why God furnished the evidence as a revelation.

Since the scientific literature would not think that revelation from God is relevent, then we would not expect this evidence to appear in scientific journals.

So your answer is "no."


Once one realizes the truth then it can easily be seen to be true.

Shouldn't it be the other way around?


However to do so one must separate the data part of the evidence from the interpretations given to the evidence by people who believe they must come up with a "naturalistic" explanation in order to be a scientist.

So you think it is impossible for natural evidence to point to special creation within the last 15,000 years?


The best that can be done is to show that the evidence (not the interpretations of that evidence) is consistent with the revelation from God or at least that attempts to refute the revelation have been unsuccessful.

Then go ahead, this thread is for you.


Because there is much evidence that can not be explained adequately by either creation or evolution concepts we must recognize that this is a "work in progress".

Such as?


For me, the best evidence that Genesis is correct and evolution is false lies in the areas of genetics, biology, chemistry, geology and paleontology.

Pick the best piece of evidence, in your opinion, and we'll discuss it.


Since all of the evidence is not consistent with the evolutionary hypothesis I decided to investigate the creation hypothesis, and so far I have not found any evidence that is not consistent with it.


What evolutionary hypothesis? What evidence? How are shared endogenous retrovirus and shared pseudogenes consistent with the creation hypothesis? BTW: was is the creation hypothesis?

[Tycho]

Yesterday @ 01:33 PM
Socratism:
Since the scientific literature would not think that revelation from God is relevent, then we would not expect this evidence to appear in scientific journals.

First you have to demonstrate that the literature in question is actually revelation from God. Then you have to show some kind of relevance to the question at hand. Since the only way to do this is through evidence, then why not just use the evidence in the first place?

[RufusAtticus]

Bump

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 05:38 PM
Socratism:

I feel that if creation is true then all of the evidence available to date should be consistent with that event.

But if evolution is true then all of the evidence should be consistent with that hypothesis.

Since all of the evidence is not consistent with the evolutionary hypothesis I decided to investigate the creation hypothesis, and so far I have not found any evidence that is not consistent with it.

I bet you have no idea how logically flawed what you just wrote is. Before you even bothered investigating the creation hypothesis I could have told you that you weren't going to find any evidence that conflicts with it! Because any chance of that would be easily explained as God's work a.k.a. a miracle.

Let's say I told you God (not the Christian God, just a god) had spoken to me this morning and told me he just created the entire world last week - everything down to the last atom - with the memories of all of us completely intact as to let us believe that we've all been around all this time. Exactly would evidence could you provide me that would tell me that hypothesis was not true?

The idea that your particular creation story is supported by evidence is ridiculous considering that you insert God's miracles wherever necessary. You can't tell me that Noah's Ark didn't contain just a couple of little miracles - like how all those animals lined up just perfectly to get on the boat.

If anything an imperfect scientific theory is the norm rather than the exception. There aren't too many scientific theories that don't have a couple of wrinkles that still need to be ironed out.

That's what really drives me nuts. People will claim they have the evidence for Creation or the Flood or whatever and base it all on logic - however, there's always one or two "miracles" inserted somewhere along the way. And then, when I try to explain that even one miracle is too much because once you step outside of the rules of natural law you might as well make the entire thing a miracle they look at me like I've got two heads.

Sometimes I feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone.

[Woman]

Socratism:
I think it is fair to say that to an ancient observer no obvious evidence exists outside of scripture that would lead to that conclusion. This is probably why God furnished the evidence as a revelation.

That sounds honest.

I'm assuming you mean the inspired Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, traditionally credited to Moses.

Do you think that Noah knew anything about creation? I don't recall having heard an opinion about that before.

[tgamble]

03-17-2003 @ 10:38 PM
Socratism:
Since all of the evidence is not consistent with the evolutionary hypothesis I decided to investigate the creation hypothesis, and so far I have not found any evidence that is not consistent with it.

Then you haven't looked hard enough. There is simply no evidence to support creation. The fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, genetics. All fields refute it, no fields support it.

You are incorrect when you say the evidence is not consistent with evolution. It is, and that's why it's accepted fact for everyone except a small religious minority who reject it solely for religious reasons.

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:41 PM
tgamble:



Then you haven't looked hard enough. There is simply no evidence to support creation. The fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, genetics. All fields refute it, no fields support it.

You are incorrect when you say the evidence is not consistent
with evolution. It is, and that's why it's accepted fact for everyone except a small religious minority who reject it solely for religious reasons.

I respectfully disagree. I have looked into these things very carefully ever since I first began to suspect that my prior faith in evolution was not well founded.

There is no need to drag your perception of other people's motivations into this. Is your scientific case so weak that you have some emotional need to do this?

BTW, surveys do not support your premise regarding a "small minority", although this has nothing to do with the truth of the matter, which causes me to wonder whether your belief is more of a "bandwagon" effect than a carefully thought out investigation.

[RufusAtticus]

Socratism,

How about answering the challenge of this thread and show us some of this evidence that supports creation and conflicts with evolution?

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
Woman:

Socratism:

That sounds honest.

I'm assuming you mean the inspired Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, traditionally credited to Moses.

Do you think that Noah knew anything about creation? I don't recall having heard an opinion about that before.

How do you think the detailed account of the creation, undoubtedly written down by Adam, came to be preserved and eventually compiled into the Torah by Moses?

Don't you think that Noah would have preserved such an important document (and others) on the Ark?

[tgamble]

I respectfully disagree. I have looked into these things very carefully ever since I first began to suspect that my prior faith in evolution was not well founded.

I doubt that. It sounds like you've looked at creationist propaganda. Nothing more. You admit that without the bible you'd have no reason to believe in a young earth!


There is no need to drag your perception of other people's motivations into this.

By your own admission, my perseption is quite correct!


Is your scientific case so weak that you have some emotional need to do this?

The scientific case for evolution is very strong actually. that's why scientists don't have any statements of faith. It's why scientific journals are filled with new research supporting evolution and creationists have no research supporting their claims.

It's the creationists who use emotional rhetoric "I don't want to be related to an ape!" "if evolution is true life has no meaning" etc. etc. etc.

As you admitted there is no evidence to support a young earth "I think it is fair to say that to an ancient observer no obvious evidence exists outside of scripture that would lead to that conclusion."

You also state "However to do so one must separate the data part of the evidence from the interpretations given to the evidence by people who believe they must come up with a "naturalistic" explanation in order to be a scientist."

One DOES have to come up with a naturalistic explanation to be a scientist. "God did it" is simply not science. Even Christians who are scientists realize (and realized) this was true. You are either ignorant of or simply ignoring history.


How do you think the detailed account of the creation, undoubtedly written down by Adam, came to be preserved and eventually compiled into the Torah by Moses?

The creation account is a modified version of the babylonian creation myth. It wasn't written by the biblical Adam who never existed.

The Torah was not written by Moses.


Don't you think that Noah would have preserved such an important document (and others) on the Ark?

No, since there was no Ark and no flood.

[tgamble]

[i]Today @ 09:56 PM
BTW, surveys do not support your premise regarding a "small minority", although this has nothing to do with the truth of the matter,

Indeed it doesn't. But that doesn't stop creationists from useing the old "equal time" arguments. It doesn't stop them from trying to force garbage into the science classroom solely on the basis of surveys of ignorant people who think creation "science" should be given equal time to real science.

In any case, I was reffering to educated people who understood the subject, not the average person on the street who wouldn't know anything about the subject. Creationists can produce a few "scientists" who reject the reality of an old earth and evolution. But they can't produce any evidence. The nandful of people with scientific degrees are typically engineers, physicists, chemists etc. with no knowlege or understanding of evolution.

And their rejection (by their own admission) is based mainly on what the bible says. Kurt Wise (for example) bluntly stated that even if the evidence turned against creation, he would still believe it!

[Goochdad]

03-17-2003 @ 02:33 PM
Socratism:
For me, the best evidence that Genesis is correct and evolution is false lies in the areas of genetics, biology, chemistry, geology and paleontology.

In

this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=38717#post38717) you complained about the lack of specific numerical details in someone's post. Now you claim that your evidence can be presented as just "the areas of genetics, biology, chemistry, geology, and paleontology"? Care to get a BIT more specific there? You've been asked several times.

And as Rufus noted, nobody actually presented any evidence in the previous thread.

Why can't you just present some specific bit of evidence, backed by a scientific publication, that you take as evidence for special creation?

[RufusAtticus]

Fredster was at least willing to try. Anybody else want to have a go at it?

[Socrates]

tgamble continues to spruik on about that which he has no knowledge: The creation account is a modified version of the babylonian creation myth. No, the Babylonian account is clearly a polythesitic corruption of the true Genesis account.It wasn't written by the biblical Adam who never existed.And your disproof is, what?
The Torah was not written by Moses.Universal Jewish tradition said it was, and they were thousands of years closer to the event, and shared the same language and culture. So why should we take tgamble's word to the contrary? Expecially when he's so level-headed that he dribbles on both sides of his mouth equally.

Kurt Wise (for example) bluntly stated that even if the evidence turned against creation, he would still believe it!He is hardly typical of creationists, although what he said wasn't quite the way tgamble put it (now there's a surprise).

[RufusAtticus]

Rufus notes that the "evolution eviscerator" still avoids offering evidence for special creation.

[Socrates]

I could say that my title is "Evolution eviscerator" not "Creation prover" so what's RA's beef? Also, since evolution and creation (sensu lato) are the only alternatives, eviscerating evolution is automatically evidence for creation.

Similarly, many of the evolutionary arguments, including RA's, are not so much arguments for evolution but "God wouldn't do it that way". But once again, there is one rule for creationists and another for evolutionists. In this case, they are apparently allowed to use the disjunctive syllogism and we are not.

Finally, I already started a thread about a falsification test of evolution and thereofore positive evidence for creation, involving microscopic motors like the bacterial flagellum and ATP synthase.

[Woman]

How do you think the detailed account of the creation, undoubtedly written down by Adam, came to be preserved and eventually compiled into the Torah by Moses?

Well, I don't know what the tradition is anymore. Which is why I asked. Certainly when I was in Sunday school I was not taught that the creation part of Genisis was written by Adam. That's truly a horrible thing to have to contemplate.

Here's a man, the first one...having to scratch out a living from the land with no help but Eve's for many years. He's been kicked out of Eden, cursed with death and sin, fought disease, heat and cold, (maybe had to hide from T-Rex and a few other monsters who wanted to tear his flesh to pieces) has been or will be witness to the death of one son at the hand of another...the world's first murder. Now, on top of this horrible existance, he is compelled to write it all down - to face the horror of what he and he alone has done, which is to basically turn the world and everything in it to pain and suffering and death. It's a wonder he didn't just hang himself.


Don't you think that Noah would have preserved such an important document (and others) on the Ark?
Again, I don't know. Was Noah a learned man? Could he read and write? Did he understand that he was responsible for maintaining the entire history of Creation and the world? I guess he did, since he is the one who had to record the story of the Flood and his family and the destruction of every living creature except those he saved. Then he would have had to entrust these tablets, along with what is probably now a weighty collection, to his sons and their progeny. That way, when Moses is given the tablets by whoever passed them down to him, he'll realize how vitally important they are - and later as he wanders in the desert for 40 years he won't be tempted to leave any of them behind.

Is this pretty much the way it happened?

Now that I think of it, I'm beginning to wonder why no one ever mentioned these tablets, passing from one generation to another, unbroken for hundreds and hundreds of years.

[Socrates]

These arguments are way from conclusive. First, the ancients tended to be made of sterner stuff than westerners who live in air conditioned houses and can eat food on the run. Also, such arguments neglect the importance of genealogies to the ancients. There is also the fallacy of arguing from silence -- explaining that the account was written on tables is like explaining that I'm typing this on a QWERTY keyboard -- it's just not necessary because it was just assumed. But there is indication of where the tablets ended, according to Wiseman's idea that the phrase "This is the toledoth ["generations" or more properly "account"] of ..." was actually the closing signature of the author.

It's also important to realise that the long lives of the patriarchs meant the human chain of transfer could have been very short, with only a few links. E.g Adam could have given his tablets PERSONALLY to Methuselah, who died in the year of the Flood (his name may mean "when he dies, it shall be sent"). Before he died, he could have given these tablets to his trusted grandson Noah. And Noah's son Shem could have PERSONALLY given Abraham the tablets written by his father and brothers. It would be just the thing to do for Abraham to pass them on to Isaac, who would pass them on to Jacob, who would pass them on to Joseph. And when the Israelites brought the mummified body of Joseph back from Egypt, the tablets recording their ancestry would be likewise brought back.

Then Moses would have 40 years in the wilderness to edit these tablets (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) into what we now have as Genesis.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 03:07 AM
Socrates:

I could say that my title is "Evolution eviscerator" not "Creation prover" so what's RA's beef? Also, since evolution and creation (sensu lato) are the only alternatives, eviscerating evolution is automatically evidence for creation.


Which creation? Hesiodic? Cherokee? Sumerian? Egyptian? Finnish? Chinese? Hindu? Despite the fact how obviously wrong your claim is, I guess you have to believe it because you actually have no positive arguements for creation. Disproving evolution would do nothing to establish a young-earth, Noah's flood, the Fall, Adam & Eve, or all the other positive claims of biblical creationists.


Similarly, many of the evolutionary arguments, including RA's, are not so much arguments for evolution but "God wouldn't do it that way".

Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse creatam
naturam mundi, quanta stat praedita culpa.

Lucretius De Rerum Natururm II, 180


Finally, I already started a thread about a falsification test of evolution and thereofore positive evidence for creation, involving microscopic motors like the bacterial flagellum and ATP synthase.

Is that the one that relied on an out of context quote and false equivocations? Not to mention a fundamental misunderstanding of Haldane's Cost of Substitution.

Now, Mr. Socrates, are you capable of providing postitive evidence for special creation? Or will you drop the ball?

[tgamble]

Today @ 05:21 AM
Socrates:

tgamble continues to spruik on about that which he has no knowledge:

Socrates continues to insult because he can't defend his mythology with anything but lies.


The creation account is a modified version of the babylonian creation myth. No, the Babylonian account is clearly a polythesitic corruption of the true Genesis account.


The Babylonian account is older. The myth in Genesis is a modified version of that myth.


It wasn't written by the biblical Adam who never existed.And your disproof is, what?

The whole story is a myth.


The Torah was not written by Moses.Universal Jewish tradition said it was, and they were thousands of years closer to the event, and shared the same language and culture.


the facts and evidence shows that it wasn't. You loose again.


So why should we take tgamble's word to the contrary? Expecially when he's so level-headed that he dribbles on both sides of his mouth equally.

More insults! Is that all you have to argue with? You still have no evidence!



Kurt Wise (for example) bluntly stated that even if the evidence turned against creation, he would still believe it!He is hardly typical of creationists,

True, he's actually honest!


although what he said wasn't quite the way tgamble put it (now there's a surprise).

It's a paraphrase of what he said, not a direct quote. But it's still accurate. If you're going to make accusations of dishonesty, you should provide evidence. But of course (as usual!) you have none.

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/In6Days.html

It's worth noteing that the despite the evil evilutionist conspiracy persecuting the poor, downtrodden, abused creationists, Wise got himself a Phd from none other than Stephen Jay Gould himself!

Perhaps the creationists are lying when they claim they are being persecuted?

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 04:56 PM
tgamble:

[quote]I doubt that. It sounds like you've looked at creationist propaganda. Nothing more.

The truth is that I have examined evolutionist proganda far more than creationist writings.


You admit that without the bible you'd have no reason to believe in a young earth!

The truth is that I rejected my prior belief in evolution when I discovered that the "proofs" for it were mostly very weak and in some cases still taught even though they have been known to be false for many years.


By your own admission, my perseption is quite correct!

Your evolutionary presupposition seems to have blinded you to the meaning of my statement. It is quite commonly stated and quite false that people who reject evolution always do so on religious grounds. Some do and some don't. However, this has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. Evolutionists must believe this because in their blinded view, their case seems to be so overwhelming.


The scientific case for evolution is very strong actually. that's why scientists don't have any statements of faith.

Science in general does not, but evolution is an exception. Anyone not believing in it is said to be "ignorant", as people like yourself consistently insist. You speak out of both sides of your mouth here.


It's why scientific journals are filled with new research supporting evolution and creationists have no research supporting their claims.

Since I read the journals I would say you are quite wrong. The raw evidence supports creation better than evolution, but just like in politics people put their own "spin" to raw evidence. Communists look at the world and see evidence to support their case. So do people of every conceivable ideological persuasion.


It's the creationists who use emotional rhetoric "I don't want to be related to an ape!" "if evolution is true life has no meaning" etc. etc. etc.

Some do and some don't, just like evolutionists. Have you ever read Dawkin's books?


As you admitted there is no evidence to support a young earth "I think it is fair to say that to an ancient observer no obvious evidence exists outside of scripture that would lead to that conclusion."

There wasn't in ancient times. Your dogmatism seems to blind you even in minor points like this.


You also state "However to do so one must separate the data part of the evidence from the interpretations given to the evidence by people who believe they must come up with a "naturalistic" explanation in order to be a scientist."

One DOES have to come up with a naturalistic explanation to be a scientist. "God did it" is simply not science. Even Christians who are scientists realize (and realized) this was true. You are either ignorant of or simply ignoring history.

I think you have just fallen for a big lie.

Let us for the sake of argument assume that the creation of life was not "natural". What you just said is that science will always come up with an incorrect answer to the question of how life was created, because it is constrained to never consider an explanation that is not "natural". I personally do not believe science is so constrained. If this were the case then forensic science would always conclude that murders were "by natural causes".


The creation account is a modified version of the babylonian creation myth. It wasn't written by the biblical Adam who never existed. The Torah was not written by Moses.

Your bias is showing. The reason that some people think the Genesis account came later because they interpret the phrase "The Books of Moses" to mean that he wrotre the Genesis account by "inspiration" which to some means God dictated the whole thing to him. I think "The Tablet Theory"is far more sensible than what we were taught in Sunday School. As you might have noticed I do not take "Church tradition" as literally as some.


No, since there was no Ark and no flood.

The evidence for these things is overwhelming, but given little weight by most evolutionists, probably because its truth destroys the whole evolutionary deception.

It is ironic that there is more credible evidence for the Flood than for the earliest events in traditionally accepted Egyptian history. The historical trend is that as time goes on more and more evidence turns up to validate the accuracy of the history recorded in the scriptures.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 11:55 AM
Socratism:

The truth is that I rejected my prior belief in evolution when I discovered that the "proofs" for it were mostly very weak and in some cases still taught even though they have been known to be false for many years.

Such as?


Your evolutionary presupposition seems to have blinded you to the meaning of my statement. It is quite common and quite false that people who reject evolution always do so on religious grounds. Some do and some don't.

Correct, some, like communist Russia, rejected it on political grounds. The fact remains that I have yet to meet or learn about an evolution-denier who doesn't have strong philosophical beliefs. If evolution is ever rejected based on evidence, then this should be easy to do. Why then are they so rare?


Science in general does not, but evolution is an exception.

Please find me an evolution statement of faith then.


Since I read the journals I would say you are quite wrong. The raw evidence supports creation better than evolution

What journals do you read? What "raw evidence" are you refering to?


If this were the case then forensic science would always conclude that murders were "by natural causes".

Show me an example of forensic science concluding that a murder was by a supernatural cause. (Becareful mixing the different uses of the word "natural.")


The evidence for these things is overwhelming, but given little weight by most evolutionists, probably because its truth destroys the whole evolutionary deception.

What evidence? I don't see you offering any.

[Bald Ape]

Since I read the journals I would say you are quite wrong. The raw evidence supports creation better than evolution

Don't you get it socratism? This is the WHOLE POINT of this thread - why didn't you just come out and say this to begin with? Now, please cite the journal you read, the raw evidence you mentioned, and tell us why it supports creation better than evolution.

(Or were you lying when you typed that?)

[tgamble]

Today @ 04:55 PM
Socratism:
The truth is that I have examined evolutionist proganda far more than creationist writings.

Then I guess your misinformation is a result of dishonesty rather than ignorance.


The evidence for these things is overwhelming, but given little weight by most evolutionists, probably because its truth destroys the whole evolutionary deception.

Actually it's because such evidence is mostly fabrications, distortions, lies etc. There is no evidence for a global flood or a young earth. Both were rejected hundreds of years ago. It's given little weight because your so called evidence is so weak.

You fail to mention that even Hugh Ross (who rejects evolution) also rejects the flood myth and the myth of a young earth.

You blather on about the so called evolutionary deception yet you are unable to give any evidence that it's a deception!


It is ironic that there is more credible evidence for the Flood than for the earliest events in traditionally accepted Egyptian history.

Actually, there is no evidence at all for the flood. Plenty of evidence against it which is why it was rejected by Christian geologists some 200 years ago.


The historical trend is that as time goes on more and more evidence turns up to validate the accuracy of the history recorded in the scriptures.

Actually, more and more evidence shows the errors in scripture. The flood and creation myths are false. The story of the Tower of Bable is false. The story of the sun standing still so Joshua could continue the slaughter is false!

[Socrates]

I wrote:


I could say that my title is "Evolution eviscerator" not "Creation prover" so what's RA's beef? Also, since evolution and creation (sensu lato) are the only alternatives, eviscerating evolution is automatically evidence for creation.

RA replied:Which creation? Hesiodic? Cherokee? Sumerian? Egyptian? Finnish? Chinese? Hindu?
Despite the fact how obviously wrong your claim is, I guess you have to believe it because you actually have no positive arguements for creation. Disproving evolution would do nothing to establish a young-earth, Noah's flood, the Fall, Adam & Eve, or all the other positive claims of biblical creationists.RA clearly doesn't understand what sensu lato means :dufus: -- "in the broad sense". I.e. eviscerating evolution is evidence for some sort of creation -- I'm perfectly aware that it doesn't provide proof for one specific aspect. :doh: But there IS positive proof of all the above -- the best sort -- reliable eye-witness testimony, and the fact that Christ affirmed it. You know, the One you claim your wife follows, but you don't, yet she married you anyway despite Paul's explicit injunctions against unequally yoking with an unbeliever.

And your inability to respond to my post about motors is duly noted.

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 10:08 PM
Socrates:
RA clearly doesn't understand what sensu lato means :dufus: -- "in the broad sense". I.e. eviscerating evolution is evidence for some sort of creation -- I'm perfectly aware that it doesn't provide proof for one specific aspect. :doh:

Socrates, I'm not aware of that particular aspect of the scientific methodology. Perhaps you could fill me in? How exactly does disproving an existing theory prove another? :huh:

Gee, and all this time I thought the way science worked was by creating a complete, workable, replacement to disprove an existing one rather than just attacking it.

[tgamble]

Today @ 03:08 AM
Socrates:
But there IS positive proof of all the above -- the best sort -- reliable eye-witness testimony,

Which, of course, you don't have.


and the fact that Christ affirmed it.

Which is actually proof that Christ was as ignorant as anyone else at the time.

The flood and creation stories are still myths!

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 10:08 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41208#post41208)
Socrates:

eviscerating evolution is evidence for some sort of creation --

Except for the fact that this thread is not asking for evidence of "some sort of creation." It's asking for evidence of a very specific creationist claim. Care to offer any?


I'm perfectly aware that it doesn't provide proof for one specific aspect. :doh: But there IS positive proof of all the above -- the best sort -- reliable eye-witness testimony, and the fact that Christ affirmed it.

How do you know it's reliable if you don't have any evidence to confirm it? :bonk:

If the old testament is all the "evidence" needed to show that the Hebrew creation myths are accurate, then the Vedas are enough to show that Hindu creation myths are accurate, the Theogany is enough to show that Hesiod's creation mythis are accurate, and so on. This is what "biblical" creationists don't realize. Their mythology has as much support as the next guy's.

How do you know that your version of creation is the version of creation? You clearly don't act like your trying to prove a generic creation, why then when asked for evidence you claim you are?


You know, the One you claim your wife follows, but you don't, yet she married you anyway despite Paul's explicit injunctions against unequally yoking with an unbeliever.

Socrates is jumping to conclusions again. What leads you to believe that she was a Christian when we got married?


And your inability to respond to my post about motors is duly noted.

LOL. "Your post?" If I remember correctly, you cribbed it from AiG, who in turn couldn't tell the difference between a magnet and magnetic detection and a wheel and flagella.

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 05:43 AM Socrates:
Then Moses would have 40 years in the wilderness to edit these tablets (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) into what we now have as Genesis.

Out of curiosity, how big do you think these tablets would have been? How many would there have had to have been? I'm really just wondering - we're not talking about too many chapters, but I would imagine these would have been fairly bulky.

[QED]

Which is actually proof that Christ was as ignorant as anyone else at the time.

tgamble -- This isn't proof of that claim. Christ might well have been knowledgeable about natural history, but He might have cared less about whether the popular conception of it was accurate. He might have used the same legends that the OT authors employed as a conduit for theological messages, and in the same way that you or I might use past literary messages as allegory, without affirming their "literal historical truth".

[tgamble]

Today @ 03:15 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42147#post42147)
QED:

tgamble -- This isn't proof of that claim. Christ might well have been knowledgeable about natural history, but He might have cared less about whether the popular conception of it was accurate. He might have used the same legends that the OT authors employed as a conduit for theological messages, and in the same way that you or I might use past literary messages as allegory, without affirming their "literal historical truth".

I suppose that's true. But he also allegedly cast out deamons and other such nonsense. Few, if any, still believe that disease is still caused by deamons yet JC clearly did.

[Bald Ape]

<spruik>


[i]03-20-2003 @ 10:08 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41208#post41208)

RA :Which creation? Hesiodic? Cherokee? Sumerian? Egyptian? Finnish? Chinese? Hindu?...Disproving evolution would do nothing to establish a young-earth...

God-Hater: But there IS positive proof of all the above -- the best sort -- reliable eye-witness testimony.



</spruik>

<spout>
Um, so what man existed before the creation event to eye-witness the event? You must really hate God to go against the Genesis story, which specifically says man came from dirt after the initial creation.
</spout>

[tgamble]

[i]Today @ 05:25 PM
Um, so what man existed before the creation event to eye-witness the event? You must really hate God to go against the Genesis story, which specifically says man came from dirt after the initial creation.
&lt;/spout&gt;

He thinks the eyewitness is god.

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 03:27 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42568#post42568)
tgamble:
He thinks the eyewitness is god.

Well that would be a very good eyewitness then! :rofl:

[Socratism]

03-20-2003 @ 03:02 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=40928#post40928)
tgamble:
The story of the sun standing still so Joshua could continue the slaughter is false!

I believe that the Joshua story may be based on an historical event that really happened!

(athough probably not exactly as described). If you read the entire chapter in the book of Joshua, you find that there was a second "miracle", the enemy was wiped out by "hail from heaven". The Bible account says that more enemy died this way than were killed by Joshua and his men.

Two impossible events in the same account. Are they related? Possibly.

Joshua 10:11 And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.
12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.

Now I would like to point out that the idea that stones can fall from the sky was denied by scientists as late as the end of the 18th century when the French Academy voted that they could not do so. Thus it is amazing that the primitive person who wrote the book of Joshua claimed that this is what aided them in the battle.

Was it a close encounter with a comet that caused the earth to keel over like a giant top? The precession effect of a gyroscope when an impulse is applied would explain the lengthened day, and if the impulse was caused by a passing heavenly body such as a comet or asteroid, there would be an intense shower of meteorites (of course the earth would right itself, as do tops, when the force is removed).

Was it a strange coincidence that caused these two miracles to end up in the same story, or is this something we should take seriously and try to investigate? Possibly. The choice is yours.

[RufusAtticus]

Socratism,

You got that evidence we've been asking for?

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 09:41 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43273#post43273)
Socratism:
Was it a close encounter with a comet that caused the earth to keel over like a giant top? The precession effect of a gyroscope when an impulse is applied would explain the lengthened day, and if the impulse was caused by a passing heavenly body such as a comet or asteroid, there would be an intense shower of meteorites (of course the earth would right itself, as do tops, when the force is removed).

Holy cow. Do you have any idea the energy that would be released in such a cataclysmic event as the one you just described? Those people would have had a LOT more to worry about than some stones falling from the sky. Would you care for me to list just a few?


Weather: The atmosphere wouldn't have been as affected so however much the Earth slowed down, the atmosphere would have kept going at that speed. I'd imagine we're looking at instantenous worldwide hurricaine force winds at a minimum. If you talking about a complete stop of the Earth's rotation - well, that's close to 1000 mph.

Earthquakes: The core of the planet is viscous and wouldn't stop on a dime either. This would no doubt result in worldwide earthquakes the likes of which no person has ever (or will ever) see.

Volcanoes: All that magma sloshing around would undoubtedly pop the corks on a couple of this pretty quickly. And speaking of sloshing around...

The oceans and seas: These are known to be a little bit more than viscous - more like fluid. Gravity doesn't stop things on a dime, you know, especially when they have a whole lot of kinetic energy behind them. I'd say the oceans and seas would slosh out of their basins for a good distance.


This is just simply too ridiculous to contemplate further. You better hurry up and throw in "God did it in such a way as to make it possible" quick before someone posts the real scientific solid numbers regarding the energies involved with such a crazy idea. And no, I do not think the Earth would recover from such an event in the least bit - at least not without the hand of God reaching down to give Earth a good spin.

[Socrates]

I wrote:

And your inability to respond to my post about motors is duly noted.

RA spluttered:

LOL. "Your post?"Of course!! :doh: I am the thread starter!If I remember correctly, you cribbed it from AiG,And I never denied that I got the idea from them, and even cited them. Plagiarism is citing someone else's work as your own, but I was up front in acknowledging my source.... who in turn couldn't tell the difference between a magnet and magnetic detection and a wheel and flagella.:dufus: What nonsense. Magnetic detection involves magnets, and a motor is a type of wheel. The PRINCIPLE still stands.

[tgamble]

[i]Today @ 12:58 PM
This is just simply too ridiculous to contemplate further.

Isn't that true of just about anything in creation "science"?


You better hurry up and throw in &quot;God did it in such a way as to make it possible&quot; quick before someone posts the real scientific solid numbers regarding the energies involved with such a crazy idea. And no, I do not think the Earth would recover from such an event in the least bit - at least not without the hand of God reaching down to give Earth a good spin.

Of course God made it all possible. That's the creationist solution to any problem pointed out. There's absolutely no way the bible could just be wrong of course!

:lol: :rofl: :rofl:

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 08:13 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43608#post43608)
Socrates:

What nonsense. Magnetic detection involves magnets

Look up your physiology. Magnetic detection involves iron particles.


, and a motor is a type of wheel.

LOL are you sure about that?


The PRINCIPLE still stands.

It never did.

[Socratism]

Today @ 07:58 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43600#post43600)
TenDimensions:

Holy cow. Do you have any idea the energy that would be released in such a cataclysmic event as the one you just described? Those people would have had a LOT more to worry about than some stones falling from the sky. Would you care for me to list just a few?

You have no idea what you are talking about.


Weather: The atmosphere wouldn't have been as affected so however much the Earth slowed down.

the atmosphere would have kept going at that speed. I'd imagine we're looking at instantenous worldwide hurricaine force winds at a minimum. If you talking about a complete stop of the Earth's rotation - well, that's close to 1000 mph.

Gyroscopic precession does not affect rotational speed.


Earthquakes: The core of the planet is viscous and wouldn't stop on a dime either. This would no doubt result in worldwide earthquakes the likes of which no person has ever (or will ever) see.

Again you are talking about the rotation slowing down. You have no idea what you are talking about.


Volcanoes: All that magma sloshing around would undoubtedly pop the corks on a couple of this pretty quickly. And speaking of sloshing around.

This is a legitimate point, except that we already know such things took place in the Pacific Northwest, the Tibetan Plateau, etc. These outpourings of lava were truly massive and unexplained by uniformitarian concepts.



The oceans and seas: These are known to be a little bit more than viscous - more like fluid. Gravity doesn't stop things on a dime, you know, especially when they have a whole lot of kinetic energy behind them. I'd say the oceans and seas would slosh out of their basins for a good distance.

This is just simply too ridiculous to contemplate further. You better hurry up and throw in &quot;God did it in such a way as to make it possible&quot; quick before someone posts the real scientific solid numbers regarding the energies involved with such a crazy idea. And no, I do not think the Earth would recover from such an event in the least bit - at least not without the hand of God reaching down to give Earth a good spin.

After you calm down would you answer two questions?

Did you ever play with a top as a child?

Did you ever notice it stop dead when you touched it when it was spinning and it started to wobble?

The ignorance of some evolutionists is stunning!!!

[tgamble]

[i]Today @ 10:01 PM

After you calm down would you answer two questions?

Did you ever play with a top as a child?

Did you ever notice it stop dead when you touched it when it was spinning and it started to wobble?

The ignorance of some evolutionists is stunning!!!

You're trying to compare the planet with a toy top and you have the nerve to call others ignorant.:argh: :argh:

[Socratism]

Today @ 05:04 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43911#post43911)
tgamble:

You're trying to compare the planet with a toy top and you have the nerve to call others ignorant.:argh: :argh:

Your comments illustrate your lack of knowledge of basic physics and gyroscopic principles in particular.

Perhaps you need to have a discussion about the accuracy of the comparison of a toy top with a spinning Earth with your High School physics teacher.

[Goochdad]

Socrates continues to show his ignorance of simple physics:


Today @ 07:13 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43608#post43608)
Socrates:

Magnetic detection involves magnets, and a motor is a type of wheel. The PRINCIPLE still stands.

Apparently you forgot all about induction, Socrates. A coil of wire and a current forms a magnetic field, but isn't a magnet. Induction of current is a form of magnetic detection, yet requires no magnet.

And is this linear motor (http://www.baysidemotion.com/web/bmghome.nsf/3c78ae84df5bcda38525672a0071e830/6428fef7163476288525673100709d09?OpenDocument) a wheel? Of course not. If a flagella is a 'wheel', show me one free-spinning on its bearing.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[tgamble]

Today @ 10:12 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43921#post43921)
Socratism:
Your comments illustrate your lack of knowledge of basic physics and gyroscopic principles in particular.

ROTFL! You'd say the same thing to Phd pysicist. Even a nobel prize winning physicist. :rotfl:


Perhaps you need to have a discussion about the accuracy of the comparison of a toy top with a spinning Earth with your High School physics teacher.

I graduated high school a few years back. Not that it would matter of course. You're not interersted in listening to anyone who points out the flaws in your ridiculous claims. You'd just dismiss him as a christian hateing evolutionist and continue to spew idiocy.

[Goochdad]

Today @ 04:12 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43921#post43921)
Socratism:



Your comments illustrate your lack of knowledge of basic physics and gyroscopic principles in particular.

Perhaps you need to have a discussion about the accuracy of the comparison of a toy top with a spinning Earth with your High School physics teacher.

Perhaps YOU, Socratism, need to read up on gyroscopes again. The toy gyroscope precesses due to the torque produced by the cross product of the top's own angular momentum, and the torque produced by gravity when the top is tipped away from vertical. In other words, there is an external force acting continuously on the top. Where is the external force which acts on the earth in your example?

Not only that, but the precession angular frequency is far lower than the actual rotational frequency of the top, unless the rotational inertia of the external torque is of similar magnitude to the top's own rotational inertia. So even if you come up with some external force (maybe the impulse from your meteor shower?) the induced precession rate will be vanishingly small compared to the earth's rotation. So the day won't appear any longer.

Ouch! Must hurt to be so far off the mark....

[Socratism]

Tgamble,

Perhaps this will help you:

Precession: the wobble of the Earth's rotational axis on the celestial sphere (just like a toy top or gyroscope wobbles).
www.physics.unlv.edu/~jking/ast104/Lecture4.pdf

Appended Post:


Today @ 05:23 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43936#post43936)
Goochdad:
Perhaps YOU, Socratism, need to read up on gyroscopes again. The toy gyroscope precesses due to the torque produced by the cross product of the top's own angular momentum, and the torque produced by gravity when the top is tipped away from vertical. In other words, there is an external force acting continuously on the top. Where is the external force which acts on the earth in your example?

There would be two forces induced by the close passage of a heavenly body such as a comet or asteroid.

First would be the gravitational attraction, but second would be a magnetic force due to the interaction with magnetic fields. This latter force was unknown until the beginning of the space age and discovery of the Van Allen Belt. Prior to that space was assumed to be empty of magnetic fields.


Not only that, but the precession angular frequency is far lower than the actual rotational frequency of the top, unless the rotational inertia of the external torque is of similar magnitude to the top's own rotational inertia. So even if you come up with some external force (maybe the impulse from your meteor shower?) the induced precession rate will be vanishingly small compared to the earth's rotation. So the day won't appear any longer.

Since you ignored the larger forces at work here your conclusion does not necessarily follow.

It would be interesting to conduct a computer simulation of such a hypothetical event to see whether it might have some merit. I would hope people would keep an open mind until such a model would either support or falsify the premise.


Ouch! Must hurt to be so far off the mark....

Your comment indicates to me that you have made up your mind without any scientific support. I think some call that derisively "the argument from incredulity", but that apparently is only to be used when creationists doubt evolution.

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 10:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43939#post43939)
Socratism:

Tgamble,

Perhaps this will help you:

Precession: the wobble of the Earth's rotational axis on the celestial sphere (just like a toy top or gyroscope wobbles).
www.physics.unlv.edu/~jking/ast104/Lecture4.pdf


Sounds like a simple analogy to me. In any case, I'm not authorized to view the page....

[RufusAtticus]

bump

[Mahler]

Since the other thread has been off topic for a while, I'll ask the question again. Hopefully this version will actually generate some discussion.

Does any empirical evidence exist that would allow an objective observer, ignorant of biblical scripture, to conclude that life was specially created as separate types of organisms, within the last 15,000 years? If so, what is it?

When you answer, don't forget to provide references to the scientific literature in order to support the existance of your evidence and the interpretation.

So if (young earth) special creation is true, then someone should be able to provide empirical evidence for it. Any takers? The last thread didn't get much play. Will anything be different this time?

[Mahler]

Of course there is no evidence. One would have needed to be present at the very origin of life in order to gather the evidence (how --video tape? beats me, that could be doctored, no?); I've replied to the thread elsewhere, as a Christian who detests having to rebuke idiot Creationists who seem bent on discrediting Christianity with their utter stupidity. Genesis leaves room for the gap theory --if the Supreme Author of creation created everything on the first day, in a state of disarray (according to the second verse) then why believe this Master of Creation was a Supreme Author -as opposed to a bungling fool? This Supreme Author of creation supposedly, if Creationists are to be believed (which they aren't) went about correcting His bungled creation (on the first day) with the actions described in the second verse. The first and second verse do not define the first day. The second and first verse allow for an undetermined, unmentioned length of time elapsing between them, and thus, for events to have occurred that would have brought the state of disarry about that necessitated God's intervention in creation -to bring about order. This gap allows for even the 15 billion years since the big bang, to elapse before the intervention described in Genesis.
Gensis in other words, is not the account of an Ultimate Beginning.

[Chuck Lee]

Mahler, when you insult your opposition you simply look as if you're trying to win the argument by ridiculing them. That trick never works. I advise against it, especially since it frequently leads to heavy moderator intervention.





Gensis in other words, is not the account of an Ultimate Beginning.



I would think that creationist would have some issue with this, considering the opening line of Genesis (In the beginning...).

[CobraA1]

Does any empirical evidence exist that would allow an objective observer, ignorant of biblical scripture, to conclude that life was specially created as separate types of organisms, within the last 15,000 years? If so, what is it?


I could ask the same about any other theory, and turn up equally empty results.

In dealing with the logic behind both theories, I've found that most evidence behind both theories boils down to statistics - very little of the evidence tends to be completely conclusive. Also, a lot of evidence tends to be open to interpretation.

"'Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing,' answered Holmes thoughtfully; 'it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different' . . . 'There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.'" --"The Boscombe Valley Mystery" Sherlock Holmes Novel

Underlying assumptions are disagreed on often also - we can't prove/disprove anything effectively because we are starting from different foundations. One can only really prove anything if the assumptions are agreed on.]

RufusAtticus's sig, for example - his definitions of microevolution and macroevolution do not agree with YECs - therefore progress in his arguments will be impossible until definitions are first agreed upon.

Also, there's very little attempt to start from scratch - start with raw evidence, and try to form a theory from the evidence alone. Presupposing the conclusion before applying it to the evidence is actually a logical fallacy. The evidence should lead to the conclusion without presupposing the conclusion.

"'Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing,' answered Holmes thoughtfully; 'it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different' . . . 'There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.'" --"The Boscombe Valley Mystery" Sherlock Holmes Novel

I've also seen "well, it seems to fit the best" used as reasoning also. Yeah, that's nice, but making evidence support a conclusion is easy enough. Making the evidence prove the conclusion is a diferent matter.

In other words, there's been plenty of attempts to make the evidence point a certain way, but little in the way of making it actually prove anything. Until basic foundations are agreed upon, proving/disproving anything will be impossible.

[geochron]

Also, there's very little attempt to start from scratch - start with raw evidence, and try to form a theory from the evidence alone. Presupposing the conclusion before applying it to the evidence is actually a logical fallacy. The evidence should lead to the conclusion without presupposing the conclusion.



Is this not what we have done as a scientific community? We didn't start out 200 years ago with notions of common descent and a 4.5 Ga Earth. We were led there by the evidence. Creationists, on the other hand, have never started from scratch AFAICS.




In other words, there's been plenty of attempts to make the evidence point a certain way, but little in the way of making it actually prove anything. Until basic foundations are agreed upon, proving/disproving anything will be impossible.



Surely the scientific community is defined by the standards of proof it employs. Scientific proof is not the same as logical proof nor even legal proof - it has more in common with the original meaning of proof: a test. Furthermore, the scientific community agrees on basic foundations. Creationists are welcome to stand outside these agreements as far as their views on "origins" are concerned - science is not the only valid mindset - where they transgress as far as I am concerned is in asserting that within the accepted standards of scientific proof and "basic foundations" their theory is an equal player or the best solution.

[CobraA1]

Is this not what we have done as a scientific community? We didn't start out 200 years ago with notions of common descent and a 4.5 Ga Earth. We were led there by the evidence. Creationists, on the other hand, have never started from scratch AFAICS.


I'm not so sure about that - once the theory was formed, it led the evidence - it was assumed the theory was correct for all evidence, and the theory changed to suit the evidence. No serious attempt was made to form other theories.



Surely the scientific community is defined by the standards of proof it employs. Scientific proof is not the same as logical proof nor even legal proof - it has more in common with the original meaning of proof: a test.


Hence it will never be as vigorous as a formal proof. Hence you will never be able to be able to say it with certainty. Hence you'll never really be able prove anything with the certainty of formal logic or mathematics.

If this is the "standard" of proofs it employs, then it's a pretty low standard.



Furthermore, the scientific community agrees on basic foundations.


For 99% of Science, "yes". But that would be a "no" when it comes to the origins debate.

[DunnySaze]

I'm not so sure about that - once the theory was formed, it led the evidence - it was assumed the theory was correct for all evidence, and the theory changed to suit the evidence. No serious attempt was made to form other theories.

It's an iterative process that works both ways. Theories are constructed to explain a given set of data. Predictions are made using the theory and if verified then we have increased confidence in the theory. Theories certainly can be overthrown by a whole new theory, but they can also be modified, as all theories cover a range of possibilities. With evolution, we can predict the broad outlines like the finding of certain types of transitional forms, but it's more difficult to predict a specific ancestor-descendent relationship for instance. Scientific theories are stable, but must never stand still. To do so makes them dogmas, useless to advancing understanding.


Hence it will never be as vigorous as a formal proof. Hence you will never be able to be able to say it with certainty. Hence you'll never really be able prove anything with the certainty of formal logic or mathematics.

If this is the "standard" of proofs it employs, then it's a pretty low standard.

Yes! Yes! Yes! That is the standard. As we try to say over and over and over again, science does not deal in proofs. It deals in evidence. We can never know anything in science with absolute certainty. This is why we fight vigorously not to have a basis in certainly, such as accepting a particular religious understanding of Genesis, as fact. To do so locks science into a dogma from which it cannot be freed. Even a little bit of dogma (like accepting it only for origins science) is too much. Dogmatism is not the same as being very convinced by the evidence. (Says he, knowing that 'evolutionists are dogmatic too' comments will without a doubt be forthcoming from some corner.)

Or, to put it as it's found in the AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF 72 NOBEL LAUREATES, 17 STATE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, AND 7 OTHER SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES in the case EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD, et al., (1986) Case # No. 85-1513 ---


...

Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena. Science is not equipped to evaluate supernatural explanations for our observations; without passing judgment on the truth or falsity of supernatural explanations, science leaves their consideration to the domain of religious faith. Because the scope of scientific inquiry is consciously limited to the search for naturalistic principles, science remains free of religious dogma and is thus an appropriate subject for public-school instruction.

...

Just as children should understand and appreciate the scientific theories that offer the most robust and reliable naturalistic explanations of the universe, children should also understand and appreciate the essentially tentative nature of science. In an ideal world, every science course would include repeated reminders that each theory presented to explain our observations of the universe carries this qualification: "as far as we know now, from examining the evidence available to us today."

"As far as we know now, from examining the evidence available to us today."

You might think the standard here is pretty shaky. And it's not as QED as mathematics or logic might allow. But this is the standard, and it has served us well.


For 99% of Science, "yes". But that would be a "no" when it comes to the origins debate.

Why should origins be any different as far as science is concerned? The scientific process is the same whether it's "origins" or not. It still involves systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world. It still involves categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena. It remains tentative, and passes no judgment for or against supernatural claims. The difference appears to be this is where science treads on the feet of certain very specific religious positions. People with these positions feel that if the science is right here, then they must be wrong.

And that's the real problem. But it's not a problem for science.

[geochron]

You have no idea what you are talking about.


Someone who interchanges impulse and force for torque...




Socratism:

Was it a close encounter with a comet that caused the earth to keel over like a giant top? The precession effect of a gyroscope when an impulse is applied would explain the lengthened day, and if the impulse was caused by a passing heavenly body such as a comet or asteroid, there would be an intense shower of meteorites (of course the earth would right itself, as do tops, when the force is removed).



...when discussing gyroscopes ought to be a little more careful with that sort of denunciation.

Now, how does the comet impose this torque? How big is it and how far away? Can we quantify it in comparison to the torque imposed on the Earth by the Moon, for instance?

[DunnySaze]

Someone who interchanges impulse and force for torque...



...when discussing gyroscopes ought to be a little more careful with that sort of denunciation.

Now, how does the comet impose this torque? How big is it and how far away? Can we quantify it in comparison to the torque imposed on the Earth by the Moon, for instance?

And also, why didn't Uranus bounce back up like the Earth did?

[HRG_new]

Tgamble,

Perhaps this will help you:

Precession: the wobble of the Earth's rotational axis on the celestial sphere (just like a toy top or gyroscope wobbles).
www.physics.unlv.edu/~jking/ast104/Lecture4.pdf

Appended Post:



There would be two forces induced by the close passage of a heavenly body such as a comet or asteroid.

First would be the gravitational attraction, but second would be a magnetic force due to the interaction with magnetic fields. This latter force was unknown until the beginning of the space age and discovery of the Van Allen Belt. Prior to that space was assumed to be empty of magnetic fields.

Physics is a quantitative science, thus when you say "interaction with magnetic fields" this is pure handwaving, unless you can say how large this interaction might have been.

Have you ever made any quantitative estimates, even if they are only order-of-magnitude, of the total force that the Earth field of a few gauss would have on the passing body, and vice versa ? We are not talking about two neutron stars with their teratesla fields interacting!

Regards,
HRG.

[CobraA1]

It's an iterative process that works both ways. Theories are constructed to explain a given set of data.


OUCH. A prime example of what I'm talking about.

if a, then b
b
therefore a
not valid (even if all premesis are true, not neccessarily true)
"b may follow a" - then again, b may follow something else

Replace a with the evidence, b with the theory - with this type of reasoning, you come up with a theory, but it's one out of many possible theories.

The correct form, BTW, should be:
if a, then b
a
therefore b
valid (if all the premesis are true, then neccessarily true)
"b neccessarily follows a"



We can never know anything in science with absolute certainty.


With reasoning like what you gave me, of course not!



This is why we fight vigorously not to have a basis in certainly


Huh?



The scientific process is the same whether it's "origins" or not.


I was replying about foundations, not proccesses. Starting with different assumptions will lead to different conclusions, regardless of the process.



You might think the standard here is pretty shaky. And it's not as QED as mathematics or logic might allow. But this is the standard, and it has served us well.


If that's what you want to do, fine. I'm not satisfied with mere adequacy, though.

QED? Huh? Err, what does that stand for?

[Rationalist]

I was replying about foundations, not proccesses. Starting with different assumptions will lead to different conclusions, regardless of the process.

The problem with this argument is that human beings all start with the same assumptions. This doesn't necessarily have to be true, but observation supports the idea that it's true.

The short list of assumptions are:

1. If I see something that contradicts what I believe, I consider it evidence what I believe might be false.
1a. Statements of fact about immediate eyewitness events I always consider true.
1b. Statements of fact recorded in an objective way I almost always consider true.
1c. Statements of fact recounted by unbiased witnesses, large numbers of witnesses with no interest in the outcome I often consider true.
1d. Uncontroversial facts that I haven't witnessed I also usually consider true.
2. Simple reasoning about the facts that I see usually lead me to reconsider my beliefs.
2a. If there are direct contradictions from things that I witness myself, I always change my mind.
2b. If there are direct contradictions from things that I witness indirectly, I usually change my mind.
2c. If the reasoning is more complex, or the facts are less immediate, I am less likely to change my mind.
3. I am conservative in my beliefs. If there might be another reason for the apparent contradiction, I will consider it first.
4. But if the contradictions to my belief cause me a great deal of personal trouble, injury, or other problems, I will tend to immediately abandoning my belief.
5. If the effort I put into coming up with other reasons to explain too many contradiction becomes too tiresome or time consuming, I also will consider abandon my original belief.
6. If there the new belief saves me a great deal of time and energy, and improves my life and solves my problems, I will sometimes consider abandoning my belief in favor of the new one.

These are the basic set of human assumptions that we all share. They're called fundamental human reasoning. They don't have to be identical between humans, but for reasons relating to "sanity", "self-preservation", and "common sense", they just are.

In evolutionary terms, there the baseline reasoning inferences that a thinking organism must have to make reasonable and productive inferences about his environment. Without this baseline of human deduction, creationists would never become scientists, evolution would never have prospered in the primarily christian countries it was developed in, and really science itself would be impossible.

So the point is, you assume that if you observe a set of facts which by simple reasoning contradicts your beliefs, it's false.. and so do I. You also assume that if you have to go to great lengths to prop up a belief with ever more tenuous ad-hoc explanations, it's probably also false, and so do I. So we both agree on our basic assumptions.

The main difference between you and I is not in our assumptions, but in our exposure to the facts. You have a different view because you think the facts are different than I do, and you think the arguments are different than I do. The test of this is to check specifically what the facts really are, and that can easily be done, and also go deeply through the arguments, and that can be done as well.

The other difference is your willingness to do the above in an objective way.

[Vorkosigan]

On Rufus' behalf, I'll ask again:

Socratism, are we going to see your evidence for special creation within the last, say 15,000 years? The stuff you said may be found in several scientific fields?

[CobraA1]

The problem with this argument is that human beings all start with the same assumptions.


I respectfully disagree.

While I'm at it, I should point out that it's not the assumptions about reasoning that are disagreeing on in this particular situation, but the assumptions about origins.

One side assumes that everything originated from an naturalistic (even if unexplainable) origin. The other side assumes that a supernatural being was at least partially involved in origins. This makes the two views unresolveable unless one or the other side can be proven/disproven.

[Rationalist]

The problem with this argument is that human beings all start with the same assumptions.

I respectfully disagree.

You're welcome to disagree.. but as this is a debate forum, it would be better if you were to provide a bit of substance to your disagreement.

I've heard the "postmodernist" defense of creationism regularly. The fact is that it simply doesn't add up. ALL people start from the same basic assumptions about the nature of reality, evidence, and simple logic. This is all that science requires, and it is all that is needed to refute creationism and affirm evolution.


While I'm at it, I should point out that it's not the assumptions about reasoning that are disagreeing on in this particular situation, but the assumptions about origins.

But I don't make any assumptions about origins.

All my assumptions are limited to my blind acceptance of the rules of basic human reason and observation, nothing more. My belief in natural origins is derived from my capacity to reason and to observe evidence... and I would submit to you that *so is yours*.

Again, my assertion is that we share precisely the same assumptions about evidence, logic, and reason, and that the difference is not in our assumptions at all, but in our exposure to the evidence and the accuracy of our understanding of the arguments.


One side assumes that everything originated from an naturalistic (even if unexplainable) origin.

No, I came to that conclusion personally after seeing evolutionary algoithms in action, and being exposed to a large number of fossil sequences in studying geology. I found the supernatural explanations increasingly contradicted by what I learned. I initially believed (based on sources I considered unbiased) that origins were not natural. I changed my mind after I became aware of additional facts.

I do not believe you either know all of these facts, or have worked through the logic. I don't think you are interested in doing any of these things either.


The other side assumes that a supernatural being was at least partially involved in origins. This makes the two views unresolveable unless one or the other side can be proven/disproven.

I don't think you "assume" that there is a supernatural being. I think that there are a variety of personal experiences which you consider evidence for such a being. Whether these experiences really constitute evidence for such a being in a rigorous sense is another matter. Regardless, I don't think your belief in God is merely an assumption.. not unless you wish us to believe you have "no" reason at all for believing in God.

[CobraA1]

ALL people start from the same basic assumptions about the nature of reality, evidence, and simple logic.


This is a broad, sweeping, huge generalization. Again, I respectfully disagree. I have not observed this. I have, however, seen people use bad logic and different assumptions about reality. Therefore, my observations lead to a contradiction with your claim that all people start from the same basic assumptions. Therefore, either my observations are false or your claim is false.



I do not believe you either know all of these facts, or have worked through the logic. I don't think you are interested in doing any of these things either.


OK, maybe you should start a new thread with a formalized argument showing these things. It should be preferably be presented in full detail, starting with the basic assumptions you have presented, presented with formal logic, explaining in detail all of the implications, leading to your conclusion. It'll probably be as long as a thesis for a doctorate, especially since I'll probably want an explanation for everything, and seeing that much of the material is technical, I'd need plenty of books relating to the various topics covered, as well as access to experts in the various fields - from both sides of the debate, of course.

I wonder if you know all of the facts, or have worked through the logic yourself. I doubt anybody has worked through everything. That would be quite a task.

The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven through science - science can only measure the natural, it cannot measure the supernatural. Unless somebody personally witnesses a miracle, nobody really can prove/disprove either way. Therefore, yes, personal experience would be a big part of why I believe in God. But from a totally scientific viewpoint, his existence or nonexistance would have to be assumed, since science cannot directly measure or test God.

BTW, I'll have to leave this conversation - homework is catching up with me, and I have to cut back on forums. Talk to y'all when the semester is over.

[Vorkosigan]

The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven through science - science can only measure the natural, it cannot measure the supernatural.

Incorrect. Science can show that the origin of the belief in gods lies in natural and comprehensible processes of human mind and culture, and thus, that the best available evidence shows that gods are human inventions. Hence, it would be unreasonable to believe in gods at that point.

Vorkosigan

[Rationalist]

ALL people start from the same basic assumptions about the nature of reality, evidence, and simple logic.

This is a broad, sweeping, huge generalization. Again, I respectfully disagree. I have not observed this. I have, however, seen people use bad logic and different assumptions about reality. Therefore, my observations lead to a contradiction with your claim that all people start from the same basic assumptions. Therefore, either my observations are false or your claim is false.

Which of my claims listed in my enumeration above do you believe to be false? These are specific statements about how human beings perceive and interpret information, and they are backed up by the findings of cognitive science, your observations notwithstanding.

It is popular for creationist to throw in a bit of postmodernism every now and then to avoid having to admit that facts and evidence and simple reasoning can establish truth.. even amongst people who initially disagree.


I do not believe you either know all of these facts, or have worked through the logic. I don't think you are interested in doing any of these things either.

OK, maybe you should start a new thread with a formalized argument showing these things. It should be preferably be presented in full detail, starting with the basic assumptions you have presented, presented with formal logic, explaining in detail all of the implications, leading to your conclusion. It'll probably be as long as a thesis for a doctorate, especially since I'll probably want an explanation for everything, and seeing that much of the material is technical, I'd need plenty of books relating to the various topics covered, as well as access to experts in the various fields - from both sides of the debate, of course.

Since there is an entire science devoted to how people think called cognitive science, I would hardly have to start from scratch.

Have you really never been exposed to this sort of information before?


I wonder if you know all of the facts, or have worked through the logic yourself. I doubt anybody has worked through everything. That would be quite a task.

You'd be suprised what reading any reasonable number of books, reviews, and other information on a subject will do for your understanding. They key points of any subject can be picked up with a reasonable amount of effort.


The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven through science - science can only measure the natural, it cannot measure the supernatural. Unless somebody personally witnesses a miracle, nobody really can prove/disprove either way. Therefore, yes, personal experience would be a big part of why I believe in God. But from a totally scientific viewpoint, his existence or nonexistance would have to be assumed, since science cannot directly measure or test God.

No, God can not be disproven. However, science can provide far more prosaic reasons as to why the mental processes of human brains might be prone to mysticism, superstition, and beliefs in spirits and gods. You can never eliminate the possibility, but you can provide far more beleivable and convincing explanations for the phenomena of belief.


BTW, I'll have to leave this conversation - homework is catching up with me, and I have to cut back on forums. Talk to y'all when the semester is over.

K.O.... better get cracking then ;)

[CobraA1]

I'm back, but don't count on my replies being timely . . .



Incorrect. Science can show that the origin of the belief in gods lies in natural and comprehensible processes of human mind and culture


This only shows where ideas about God came from - it doesn't say anything about whether God actually exists. Nice try, though.



Which of my claims listed in my enumeration above do you believe to be false?


This one:



ALL people start from the same basic assumptions about the nature of reality, evidence, and simple logic.


"ALL people" is ridiculous - You do mean this to be a hyperbole, right? This is quite a statement, considering you claim it's true for all six billion people.

Not much wrong with the list you gave me, except that it's a list about how one manages their beliefs, not about philisophical foundations. It does lay a nice groundwork of how to weigh the evidence, though.

Note that the rules can be broken for people who are, say, hallucinating - then they can't always rely on direct observation. Ever seen A Beautiful Mind? Luckily, these tend to be exceptions rather than the rule.



Since there is an entire science devoted to how people think called cognitive science, I would hardly have to start from scratch.


I'm not to terribly concerned about how people think at the moment. Keep in mind that many practices - such as mathematics - are completely independent of how the mind operates.

[Rationalist]

"ALL people" is ridiculous - You do mean this to be a hyperbole, right? This is quite a statement, considering you claim it's true for all six billion people.

Those who have obvious mental disabilies excepted, yes.

Human beings simply can't function without a basic set of cognitive abilities, and yes.. we all share them.

Therefore we all start with the SAME basic assumptions about evidence, experience, and reason. This is all that science requires, and this is why science works.


Not much wrong with the list you gave me, except that it's a list about how one manages their beliefs, not about philisophical foundations. It does lay a nice groundwork of how to weigh the evidence, though.

Nobody is born with philosophical foundations. These foundations are based on your cognitive function. You were born, raised in a particular environment, with the standard computational device banging inside your head. Your philosophical foundations are a result of your cognitive processes.

And yes, these processes are more or less the same for most of us, even the ones that led you to a belief in God. But you also have the same response to evidence, experience, and reason that I have, and that is why discussions about evidence and reason are persuasive to you, even given your prior beliefs.


Note that the rules can be broken for people who are, say, hallucinating - then they can't always rely on direct observation. Ever seen A Beautiful Mind? Luckily, these tend to be exceptions rather than the rule.

Right.

[CobraA1]

I'll forget the whole "ALL people" thing - I'm more interested in assumptions.

As a side note, I've seen some people who rely on their emotions, and couldn't care less about reason, evidence, etc . . .

What I'm interested in is foundational beliefs - yes, the beliefs are formed, but they also serve as a basis for how we reason - unless the beliefs themselves are being discussed, they are usually assumed . . .

In many cases, it's these foundational beliefs that can allow two people to arrive at different conclusions from the same observation.

[Rationalist]

I'll forget the whole "ALL people" thing - I'm more interested in assumptions.

As a side note, I've seen some people who rely on their emotions, and couldn't care less about reason, evidence, etc . . .

When they're making breakfast?
When they're trying to figure out what's wrong with their car?
When they have a task to complete at work.

In common everyday situations where people have to evaluate the truth or falsehood of a statement, figure something out, and make something work, we all do it the same way.

If you've lost your car keys, do you question your assumptions about matter, reality? Do you typically pray in order to find them? Or do you retrace your steps, and try to figure out where you might have mislaid them?

The difference between the assumptions of science and the assumptions of the general public when it comes to more abstract subjects is that "science" applies that same set of rigorous evidence and reason based thinking everywhere. Ordinary people on the other hand don't bother with evidence or reason when it comes to abstract matters. When a subject has no immediate effect on their well being, they feel perfectly free to beleive anything they wish.


What I'm interested in is foundational beliefs - yes, the beliefs are formed, but they also serve as a basis for how we reason - unless the beliefs themselves are being discussed, they are usually assumed . . .

All of science's foundational beliefs are derived directly from the basic cognitive functioning of the brain. What you see is what is real, if one thing contradicts your belief, there's a good chance it's false, etc. These are hard coded into all individuals, and we just call it common sense.

These form the basic "assumptions" of science. These assumptions about reasoning, logic, and evidence are all fundamentally shared by almost every human being. They form a baseline from which any two different human beings can go answer the question "allright.. what is it that we CAN agree on". Human beings generally agree on direct perception, immediate inferences from that perception, and simply logic and reason about those perceptions. In other words, evidence and reason.


In many cases, it's these foundational beliefs that can allow two people to arrive at different conclusions from the same observation.

There are often multiple interpretations of data, and multiple ways of looking at the same thing. This also occurs in science.

There is a huge difference between viewing "ambiguous" evidence and arguments in multiple ways, and "unambiguous" evidence and arguments. Human beings generally are not able to view unambiguous evidence in more than one way unless they are able to avoid actual exposure to it.

If they are really determined, there are a variety of ways of avoiding having to see evidence or reason that might cause a person discomfort. Just for fun, try asking the average creationist to correctly state any given claim that evolution makes. How often do you think they can correctly state the scientific claim? What do you think the failure to correctly state what your opponent claims means as far as avoidance of exposure to evidence and reason? You can try the same test on factual matters relating to geological and paleontological evidence as well, the results will be the same.

In short, we both start with the same assumptions about evidence and reason, but one of us just avoids these things.

[CobraA1]

All of science's foundational beliefs are derived directly from the basic cognitive functioning of the brain.


Depends on what you mean by "derived" - if you mean that humans had to find these ideas, yes. If you mean that the fabric of the universe depends on human thought - er - no. We're only discovering what's already there, we don't make it up.



What do you think the failure to correctly state what your opponent claims means as far as avoidance of exposure to evidence and reason?


Nothing. It merely means that they don't understand their opponnent, not that they don't understand evidence and reason.

[Rationalist]

All of science's foundational beliefs are derived directly from the basic cognitive functioning of the brain.

Depends on what you mean by "derived" - if you mean that humans had to find these ideas, yes. If you mean that the fabric of the universe depends on human thought - er - no. We're only discovering what's already there, we don't make it up.

I meant to say all of sciences foundational "assumptions", or basically the scientific method, is derived directly from baseline cognitive functions which we all share.

The claims which science makes are derived from applications of the scientific method, which is basically inferences from strong observable evidence reason.


What do you think the failure to correctly state what your opponent claims means as far as avoidance of exposure to evidence and reason?

Nothing. It merely means that they don't understand their opponnent, not that they don't understand evidence and reason.

EXACTLY.. that is my point.

Doesn't it concern you at all that most creationists can't correctly describe what it is that they think is false? Doesn't it bother you that most creationist can not accurately describe the geological record, or give a representative survey of what it contains, or a general outline of the geological strata in their own area and what it contains? Or how about correctly describing radiometric or carbon dating, or how isochrons work and what they mean? Aren't these things critical to honest discourse about evolution and creation?

You have, in a nutshell, described the difference between creationism and science. There are no fundamental differences in the basic way we establishing claims as true or false. We all do it the same way. It's just that one of us very creatively avoids having to directly confront uncomfortable evidence and reason.

[CobraA1]

As a sidenote: I am beginning to wonder about the state of creationism - a year or two ago, it seemed that we had the upper hand. Now? Web sites are mostly silent. trueorigin.org hasn't been updated in heaven knows how long. Answers in Genesis isn't really coming out with new technical articles, just popular stuff. The latest ICR articles aren't very useful, and neither are any of the other websites I visit.

To be honest, some of the material presented on these forums hasn't caught the attention of the creationist websites - the pollen study, for example, is pretty much only in these forums. I haven't seen anybody write about it elsewhere.

To be honest, I'll have to subscribe to creationist peer-reviewed magizenes to find out what's happening.

What's interesting, though, is the RATE project - I'm wondering how long-earthers are going to respond to that.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-366.htm

There does seem to be some material from creationist websites about radiometric dating . . .
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/Radiomentric%20Dating/Radiometric%20Dating.html

I've also found similar material on geological strata.

The problem is, I'm not qualified to argue that kind of stuff . . . I'm not a geologist, or an expert on radiometric dating . . .

Oh, cool - I stumbled across a new resource, containing debates:
http://www.tccsa.tc/debate.html

Worth a look . . . Miht even try to write them, see what they think of some of the stuff bought up in these forums.



It's just that one of us very creatively avoids having to directly confront uncomfortable evidence and reason.


A nice blanket statement . . . but not much more than an assertion . . .


I meant to say all of sciences foundational "assumptions", or basically the scientific method, is derived directly from baseline cognitive functions which we all share.


Problem is, non-scientific assumptions can affect what conclusions we arrive at in science . . .

Take X x 5 = Y

If you insert different numbers for X, you get different results for Y.

Now, you've got old-eatrhers, and young-earthers - they'll plug different numbers into equations for the age of the earth - which will get them different results.

Now, expand the concept even further - in many places, different assumptions about stuff like age of the earth, whether God exists, etc can have an impact on where the reasoning and evidence leads.

Evidence and reasoning aren't being avoided - they just lead different places depending on the person's personal views of basic philosophy.

[Rationalist]

Problem is, non-scientific assumptions can affect what conclusions we arrive at in science . . .

Take X x 5 = Y

If you insert different numbers for X, you get different results for Y.

If what you're saying is true, then one of us could conclude that X=4, and Y=25.

Unfortunately, human beings would universally find the above "illogical", and the equation 4 x 5 = 20 to be "inaccurate".

We can't get away from logic and evidence. It's right there every time we want to just keep believing what we want to believe.. unless we cover it up.

[CobraA1]

If what you're saying is true, then one of us could conclude that X=4, and Y=25.


You kinda missed what I'm trying to say . . .

if X = 4, Y will be 20 . . .
But if X = 5, Y will be 25 . . .

Different values of X will lead to different values of Y (such is the nature of most linear equations) . . .

Different inputs will lead to different outputs . . .
Diffferent beliefs will lead to different results . . .

[Vorkosigan]

Now, expand the concept even further - in many places, different assumptions about stuff like age of the earth, whether God exists, etc can have an impact on where the reasoning and evidence leads.

Ummm. No. The age of the earth is not an "assumption" but a construction of science based on thousands upon thousands of facts, models, methods, and understandings, and is a scientific fact. You cannot "assume" it out of into existence. What position one has on God has historically had no effect on this at all. Rather, the position one takes on how to interpret the Bible, Vedas, and other holy writings ( a separate question from the existence of gods) is what determines whether one accepts or rejects the conclusions of science regarding the age of the earth.

Different beliefs do not get different results. Rather, different beliefs treat the results differently. YECs reject them out of hand, all others have no trouble accepting them.

Vorkosigan

[SteveF]

What's interesting, though, is the RATE project - I'm wondering how long-earthers are going to respond to that.

Joe Meert has responded to the RATE work. As for the rest of the scientific community, how on earth are they going to respond when they aren't aware of it. If they had the integrity to attempt to publish in the peer reviewed literature then I'm sure a response would be forthcoming.


Now, you've got old-eatrhers, and young-earthers - they'll plug different numbers into equations for the age of the earth - which will get them different results.

Not really. Young earthers get the idea of a young earth purely from the bible. Old earthers get an old earth from evidence.


Evidence and reasoning aren't being avoided - they just lead different places depending on the person's personal views of basic philosophy.

Sorry but this is empty semantics. The plain and simple fact is, that there is no evidence for a young earth.

[Rationalist]

You kinda missed what I'm trying to say . . .

if X = 4, Y will be 20 . . .
But if X = 5, Y will be 25 . . .

Different values of X will lead to different values of Y (such is the nature of most linear equations) . . .

Different inputs will lead to different outputs . . .
Diffferent beliefs will lead to different results . . .

So what you're claiming is that everybody starts out with different beliefs?

If you take this to it's natural conclusion, then you would not have just the cases where x = 4 and y = 20. You will have ALL cases.. because after all, we all start out with different beliefs. Why can't some of those beliefs be that 4 x 5 = 25???

How can you say that your belief that it isn't 25 is any more correct than someone elses that it is?

To say that "you" are right, and he is wrong, assumes that there is a rudimentary set of beliefs that you are assuming you share (the belief that true statements can not be contradictory in this case).

But if we start down this path.. soon we find that there are a whole slew of such beliefs that we share like this. We share the belief in non-contradiction.. the belief in directly observed experience, the belief in observed cause and effect.. etc.

Do you see how science then can be derived from a set of beliefs that EVEN all creationists share? Everybody shares THESE particular beliefs, because they are basic human cognitive skills.

That is why it is possible to have discussions with creationists about the evidence, and why creationists go to great lengths to address evidence and reason.

The arguments aren't in these areas, they are largely in matters of fact and basic understanding. Creationists simply assume that their intended audience is in posession of neither of these things.. and they are usually right.

This is why creationist arguments tend to sound most convincing to those with the least amount of exposure to the details of biology, geology, and paleontology. This is also why the generally christian scientists in the 19th century were persuaded as a block to abandon creationism and accept evolution.

[CobraA1]

Grr, got my reply erased because I accidently hit back :argh::bawl::argh:.



Ummm. No. The age of the earth is not an "assumption" but a construction of science based on thousands upon thousands of facts, models, methods, and understandings, and is a scientific fact.


Depends on what you are doing - if it's a basic, run-of-the-mill experiment, then you probably just assume it.

If, however, you are attempting to determine the age of the earth, then of course you will use facts, models, methods, and understandings to try to determine it - what did you think you'd use??

"'Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing,' answered Holmes thoughtfully; 'it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different' . . . 'There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.'" --"The Boscombe Valley Mystery" (Sherlock Holmes novel)



Sorry but this is empty semantics.


Are you trying to say something?



The plain and simple fact is, that there is no evidence for a young earth.


See Sherlock Holmes quote above.



So what you're claiming is that everybody starts out with different beliefs?


Beliefs may be formed during ones' life, but yes, when entering a conversation, people can start out with different beliefs.



Why can't some of those beliefs be that 4 x 5 = 25???


You could have such beliefs, but I wouldn't believe you. 4x5=25 is an impossibility.



But if we start down this path.. soon we find that there are a whole slew of such beliefs that we share like this. We share the belief in non-contradiction.. the belief in directly observed experience, the belief in observed cause and effect.. etc.


Such beliefs are inherit to logic. We share them because they cannot possibly be incorrect.



Everybody shares THESE particular beliefs, because they are basic human cognitive skills.


Non-contradiction and cause and effect are formal logic statements - formal logic is universal, and exists independently of human thought, just like mathematics. The universe follows the laws of mathematics and formal logic, regardless of any human factors. If we can prove that contradictions exist, we can prove anything, and mathematics and logic break down completely.

[shunyadragon]

I feel that if creation is true then all of the evidence available to date should be consistent with that event.

But if evolution is true then all of the evidence should be consistent with that hypothesis.

Since all of the evidence is not consistent with the evolutionary hypothesis I decided to investigate the creation hypothesis, and so far I have not found any evidence that is not consistent with it.
What evidence is not consistent with evolution?

No physical evidence would be inconsistent with the creation hypothesis simply because the evidence is physical and not spiritual.

[CobraA1]

Umm, I've been gone how long and that's the only reply given? Wow, I guess the forum went dead w/out me, considering this thread is still on the first page :shifty:.



What evidence is not consistent with evolution?


Depends on what you mean by "evolution" - different definitions lead to different answers. Many creationists are fine with genetic change and natural selection. It's the whole idea of some pond of self-replicating molecules turning into humans that's where the real debate lies. The big problem is that molecules turning into humans is not reproduceable due to the time scale - we just can't observe the whole thing. "Evidence" is plenty, but actual proof is elusive.

[shunyadragon]

Umm, I've been gone how long and that's the only reply given? Wow, I guess the forum went dead w/out me, considering this thread is still on the first page :shifty:.



Depends on what you mean by "evolution" - different definitions lead to different answers. Many creationists are fine with genetic change and natural selection. It's the whole idea of some pond of self-replicating molecules turning into humans that's where the real debate lies. The big problem is that molecules turning into humans is not reproduceable due to the time scale - we just can't observe the whole thing. "Evidence" is plenty, but actual proof is elusive.This represets a common misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin and still today means. It simply means the evolution of all life on earth from primative life forms. Nothing in evolution discusses the origins of life itself. There are reasons why Darwin did not include this anywhere in his writings or theory. He had no evidence for the origins of life.

A biogenesis is the study of the origins of life and that is a relatively new science. This is where those molecules become life.

What time scale are you referring to? The fossil evidence and stratigraphy fits the time scale of science.

Your referrence to 'proof' does not fit the modern scientific view of the nature of 'proof' and how 'proof' is defined in different ways.

[CobraA1]

This represets a common misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin and still today means. It simply means the evolution of all life on earth from primative life forms. Nothing in evolution discusses the origins of life itself. There are reasons why Darwin did not include this anywhere in his writings or theory. He had no evidence for the origins of life.


Hence why I:
a) Made it clear that "evolution" can have different meanings
b) Didn't use the word "evolution" after my statement about different meanings.

I wanted to be clear what I was talking about - I'm not talking about evolution here. If I do, I will say so explicitly.



What time scale are you referring to?


Millions/billions of years. You can't place the history of the Earth in a test tube.



The fossil evidence and stratigraphy . . .


. . . are not the same as direct experimentation or observation.



Your referrence to 'proof' does not fit the modern scientific view of the nature of 'proof' and how 'proof' is defined in different ways.


The "modern scientific" view of the nature of "proof" is royally screwed up, IMNSHO . . .

I'll stick with mathematical and formal logical views of the nature of "proof", thanks.

Playing word games is not my idea of a good debate, and I dislike using weaker/altered definitions of words just so some people can prove one theory "scientific" and the other not. The debate is about whether or not they are true, not whether or not they are "scientific".

[HRG_new]

Millions/billions of years. You can't place the history of the Earth in a test tube.

Nor can you put Jupiter, a supernova or a hurricane into a test tube. Nevertheless, planetology, astrophysics and meterology are no less sciences than anorganic chemistry.


. . . are not the same as direct experimentation or observation.

All experimentations and observations are indirect; only the length of the inference chain may be different. This is not a word game, but a realization of the fact that we have observed common descent, ice ages etc. in the same sense as we have observed neutrinos.


The "modern scientific" view of the nature of "proof" is royally screwed up, IMNSHO . . .

I'll stick with mathematical and formal logical views of the nature of "proof", thanks.

They have their place - in mathematics and formal logic. It was a major error of philosophers to confuse the different kinds of proof.


Playing word games is not my idea of a good debate, and I dislike using weaker/altered definitions of words just so some people can prove one theory "scientific" and the other not. The debate is about whether or not they are true, not whether or not they are "scientific".

Scientific truth is one possible kind of truth. There are also Christian religious truth, Islamic religious truth, mathematical truth etc. Each kind has its own methodologies to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[CobraA1]

All experimentations and observations are indirect; only the length of the inference chain may be different.


I count direct observation as - well - direct. I therefore reject that statement. I consider input from my five senses to be direct.



This is not a word game, but a realization of the fact that we have observed common descent, ice ages etc. in the same sense as we have observed neutrinos.


I consider neutrinos to be possibly real, however, I would be open to alternate theories should they be found to more accurately represent reality. Why is it that in some areas, I can be open to alternate theories, but in others, I am ridiculed for doing so?



They have their place - in mathematics and formal logic. It was a major error of philosophers to confuse the different kinds of proof.


Extrapolate, please: Why should mathematics and formal logic not be applied to science?



Scientific truth is one possible kind of truth. There are also Christian religious truth, Islamic religious truth, mathematical truth etc. Each kind has its own methodologies to separate the wheat from the chaff.


The word "truth" is, according to my dictionary, "Conformity to fact or actuality." I think this definition is enough to cover "Christian religious truth, Islamic religious truth, mathematical truth etc." I do not need different "kinds" of truth.

[The Barbarian]

Extrapolate, please: Why should mathematics and formal logic not be applied to science?

They can be. But "proof" is not part of science. You will never have logical certainty in science, which is primarily inductive, and for which we will never have the exhaustive set of rules. Science works by collecting data and making inferences from it.

I've been told by mathematicians that there are inductive proofs, but I don't know of any. I'd sure like to see one.

[CobraA1]

Gotta love the uncertainty of the English language. 7 definitions of induction:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=induction

They're probably referring to definition #4:

If we can show:
M(1)
M(x)->M(x+1) always holds
we have proven that:
M(1)->M(2)->M(3)-> . . . -> M(n)

[AdvocatDiaboli]

I count direct observation as - well - direct. I therefore reject that statement. I consider input from my five senses to be direct.

If one sees footprints in a field of snow, can one 1)know 2)assume 3)guess that someone has walked there after the snow has fallen?

[HRG_new]

Gotta love the uncertainty of the English language. 7 definitions of induction:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=induction

They're probably referring to definition #4:

If we can show:
M(1)
M(x)->M(x+1) always holds
we have proven that:
M(1)->M(2)->M(3)-> . . . -> M(n)

It even works in the transfinite.

If we can show:

If M(alpha) holds for all alpha < beta, then M(beta) holds as well
(alpha and beta are symbols for ordinal numbers)

then M holds for all ordinal numbers.

(Extra points for those who realize why I don't need a premise like M(1) in my formulation :wink: )

Regards, HRG.

[HRG_new]

I count direct observation as - well - direct. I therefore reject that statement. I consider input from my five senses to be direct.


Then I'm afraid you do not observe the sun directly. All your optical sense can detect are photons; it's from their pattern that you infer - subconsciously - the existence of the sun.


I consider neutrinos to be possibly real, however, I would be open to alternate theories should they be found to more accurately represent reality. Why is it that in some areas, I can be open to alternate theories, but in others, I am ridiculed for doing so?

You would be - well, let's say, benevolently criticized :smile: as well if you were open to alternatives to the theory that ordinary matter consists of atoms and molecules.


The word "truth" is, according to my dictionary, "Conformity to fact or actuality." I think this definition is enough to cover "Christian religious truth, Islamic religious truth, mathematical truth etc." I do not need different "kinds" of truth.

Well, "eukaryote" covers everything from paramecium to man, but apparently, there are different kinds of eukaryotes as well. The term "laws" cover both those of Hammurabi and Solon on one side, and those of Boyle and Planck on the other; yet they are fundamentally different.

My point is that the generally recognized methods for establishing truth of one kind are quite different from those for establishing truth of another kind.

BTW, what is the actuality that mathematical statements correspond to ?

[CobraA1]

Then I'm afraid you do not observe the sun directly. All your optical sense can detect are photons; it's from their pattern that you infer - subconsciously - the existence of the sun.


I've got to draw a line somewhere to base my ideas of reality at. My five senses are that line. Otherwise, I'm simply lost.

I think that:
-Existence (we exist)
-Input from the five senses

Are premises that pretty much everybody agrees on. I would say, therefore, that they are a good foundation for basing our ideas about the physical world on.

Our ideas of the world and how it works have to start somewhere, otherwise we wouldn't have any science at all.



You would be - well, let's say, benevolently criticized as well if you were open to alternatives to the theory that ordinary matter consists of atoms and molecules.


LOL, probably. Weirder things have happened. Take a look at all the models we've had of the atom before we got to the current electron cloud model, and the current search for a unified field theory. Current ideas of how the universe work change all the time :bump:.



My point is that the generally recognized methods for establishing truth of one kind are quite different from those for establishing truth of another kind.


They're nice, but some methods are more certain than others.



If M(alpha) holds for all alpha < beta, then M(beta) holds as well
(alpha and beta are symbols for ordinal numbers)


Err, does "<" stand for "less than"?

I can see I was probably being unclear - "->" is supposed to represent an arrow as my logic book generally uses. It stands for "if"..."then"

M(1)->M(2) should read "if M(1) then M(2)"

BTW, M is any model, not just numerical. It works for logical equations as well.