NationStates Jolt Archive

Hmm... I guess the thing about science is that nothing is proven and set in concrete. People used to belive that the sun revolved around the earth and locked up those who disagreed with them. People belived Newtonian mechanics without a shadow of a doubt. People at the end of the 19th century thought they knew almost everything.

In science, similar to religion. We don't know, we only believe. We choose to believe the thing that most closely fits what is going on around us. Gravity, as just brought up is what we currently believe in as it best explains the things that we see around us.

I think that many people will refuse things outright as it is different to what they have been taught, but we need to look at what best fits what we see.

Hmm... I guess the thing about science is that nothing is proven and set in concrete. People used to belive that the sun revolved around the earth and locked up those who disagreed with them. People belived Newtonian mechanics without a shadow of a doubt. People at the end of the 19th century thought they knew almost everything.

In science, similar to religion. We don't know, we only believe. We choose to believe the thing that most closely fits what is going on around us. Gravity, as just brought up is what we currently believe in as it best explains the things that we see around us.

I think that many people will refuse things outright as it is different to what they have been taught, but we need to look at what best fits what we see.

People beleived, but did not have any evidence for the sun going round the earth and Newton rules are still true to a very good degree of accuracy for objects not too small or going too fast, in fact they are the best rules available for a large range of situations so your analogy is not really valid.

People beleived, but did not have any evidence for the sun going round the earth and Newton rules are still true to a very good degree of accuracy for objects not too small or going too fast, in fact they are the best rules available for a large range of situations so your analogy is not really valid.

The evidence for the sun going around the earth was the observation that in the morning it emerged from the eastern horizon, and in the evening it disappeared behind the western horizon. The logical thing to believe, in the lack of any additional evidence, was that the sun was going around the earth. Why would anyone think that the earth was spinning? It certainly doesn't feel like it is spinning.

Now, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'd like to play devil's advocate.

Physics is really the only true science because it seeks to explain everything.

Thank you. That disqualifies 99% of the 'scientists'.

I've been around scientists for over 45 years. And when you attend a symposium, with dozens of scientists, at least every other year, the number you meet and talk with soon mounts up.

Although I'd like to believe you are a genuine scientist, there's no way to verify that. Therefore, please convince people by the strength of your argument, not by your claims to fame.

Again, rubbish. We know what gravity IS, we just cannot fit it into a unified theory at the moment because we cannot detect the graviton force particle.

And that's the kicker. As a physicist you know there a lot of problems. 'String theory' does not work, so people have changed it in all kinds of ways. 10 dimensions, 11 dimensions... and you end up with something that is so extremely complicated that half of the field cannot understand the other half of the field anymore. And to top it you end up with predictions that are only theoretically falsifiable by observations...

I'm not saying you got it wrong. I'm saying you may not have it right. As a scientist you should be humble, because you know your theories will be displaced by someone else's. It may take a century, it may take a year, but you know nothing you found is absolute.

The evidence for the sun going around the earth was the observation that in the morning it emerged from the eastern horizon, and in the evening it disappeared behind the western horizon. The logical thing to believe, in the lack of any additional evidence, was that the sun was going around the earth. Why would anyone think that the earth was spinning? It certainly doesn't feel like it is spinning.

I dont see how thats logical at all. First of all you're taking only a single peice of evidence into account and ignoring any others.

Also if 2 bodies are all you take into account you could define either one as orbiting the other and it wouldnt make any difference mathematically. You must seek out a third frame of reference to get the whole picture.

Hmm... I guess the thing about science is that nothing is proven and set in concrete. People used to belive that the sun revolved around the earth and locked up those who disagreed with them. People belived Newtonian mechanics without a shadow of a doubt. People at the end of the 19th century thought they knew almost everything.


Some people thought they knew everything. Some people still do. But not those with good sense.


In science, similar to religion. We don't know, we only believe. We choose to believe the thing that most closely fits what is going on around us. Gravity, as just brought up is what we currently believe in as it best explains the things that we see around us.


My understanding of both science and religion is that it is possible to know, and one is not restricted to only belief. In science, we know that life tends to reproduce life. We don't need to believe this. That was an important experiment by Luis Pasteur. In religion, there is an example in the Gospel of John (though I am no theologian) that this Gospel was written in order that we may know God. Belief is the first step, but the state of knowing God is considered a very good possibility.


I think that many people will refuse things outright as it is different to what they have been taught, but we need to look at what best fits what we see.


I agree. It really is so typical to see people cling to what they have been taught, rather than embracing the unknown. After all, who could blame them. We do love our security.

PS. Welcome to NS

I dont see how thats logical at all. First of all you're taking only a single peice of evidence into account and ignoring any others.

Also if 2 bodies are all you take into account you could define either one as orbiting the other and it wouldnt make any difference mathematically. You must seek out a third frame of reference to get the whole picture.


What I meant was that if we were around several thousands of years ago (or anytime before Galileo), how would we know that the earth revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around? People thought that the moon revolved around the earth, and they were right.

You are right, of course. How could one make such a conclusion without a third reference? Perhaps the movement of the stars could have helped. At least Galileo got that right. At anyrate, my point was that I was trying to explain how easy it would have been to think that the sun revolved around the earth if one lacked the knowledge that we tend to take for granted nowadays.

What I meant was that if we were around several thousands of years ago (or anytime before Galileo), how would we know that the earth revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around? People thought that the moon revolved around the earth, and they were right.

You are right, of course. How could one make such a conclusion without a third reference? Perhaps the movement of the stars could have helped. At least Galileo got that right. At anyrate, my point was that I was trying to explain how easy it would have been to think that the sun revolved around the earth if one lacked the knowledge that we tend to take for granted nowadays.

Yes of course it would be easy to think that, its also easy to beleive in santa or any number or ridiculous ideas if you dont know any better. My point is that if the scientific method had existed back then, they couldnt have come up with the sun revolving around the earth even back then and stuck with it as scientifically viable.

And I would have thought that the mind was immaterial but real. How interesting to read discussions where definitions of words are so different, depending on the poster.
The great thing about the word "real" is that it has a whole 'nother set of definitions specifically designed to apply in the "realm" of the mind, namely that of validity, geniuneness and sincerity.

Yes of course it would be easy to think that, its also easy to beleive in santa or any number or ridiculous ideas if you dont know any better. My point is that if the scientific method had existed back then, they couldnt have come up with the sun revolving around the earth even back then and stuck with it as scientifically viable.

But the scientific method only helps you if you are able to make observations. Since we don't really know what they knew back then (i.e., did they have access to e.g. telescopes?), we can only speculate as to whether they were sensible or not in their observations, and what they would have concluded using the scientific method.

The great thing about the word "real" is that it has a whole 'nother set of definitions specifically designed to apply in the "realm" of the mind, namely that of validity, geniuneness and sincerity.

:) precisely! I can see that you have been tied up in debates over semantics on several occasions with that word

But the scientific method only helps you if you are able to make observations. Since we don't really know what they knew back then (i.e., did they have access to e.g. telescopes?), we can only speculate as to whether they were sensible or not in their observations, and what they would have concluded using the scientific method.

Well if they were unable to make observations they wouldnt have come to any conclusion, similair to their conclusions on nuclear physics I suppose.

Although they still would have been able to see a couple of orbiting planets and possibly come to a conclusion that way.

But the scientific method only helps you if you are able to make observations. Since we don't really know what they knew back then (i.e., did they have access to e.g. telescopes?), we can only speculate as to whether they were sensible or not in their observations, and what they would have concluded using the scientific method.

Ehm... shall we not forget the suffocating grip of the church on science for a veeeeeeery long time?

Hmm... I guess the thing about science is that nothing is proven and set in concrete. People used to belive that the sun revolved around the earth and locked up those who disagreed with them. People belived Newtonian mechanics without a shadow of a doubt. People at the end of the 19th century thought they knew almost everything.

In science, similar to religion. We don't know, we only believe. We choose to believe the thing that most closely fits what is going on around us. Gravity, as just brought up is what we currently believe in as it best explains the things that we see around us.

I think that many people will refuse things outright as it is different to what they have been taught, but we need to look at what best fits what we see.
Absolutely. And fortunately, thanks to technology, the range of what we see has become far more detailed, and our view of the world (and hence what we choose to accept as fact) appropriately closer to reality. Go us!

And we do go... We go up into orbit and see the earth and the sun from an objective perspective. We go down into cells on a microscopic level and see the inner workings. And nowhere there have we seen an indication of god.

Ehm... shall we not forget the suffocating grip of the church on science for a veeeeeeery long time?

Is that relevant to this discussion, or do you just like to keep reminding people of the 'evils' of religion?

Is that relevant to this discussion, or do you just like to keep reminding people of the 'evils' of religion?

Keep reminding? This is the first thing I have EVER said on this forum on the 'evil' of religion.

Yes of course it would be easy to think that, its also easy to beleive in santa or any number or ridiculous ideas if you dont know any better. My point is that if the scientific method had existed back then, they couldnt have come up with the sun revolving around the earth even back then and stuck with it as scientifically viable.

But the scientific method only helps you if you are able to make observations. Since we don't really know what they knew back then (i.e., did they have access to e.g. telescopes?), we can only speculate as to whether they were sensible or not in their observations, and what they would have concluded using the scientific method.

So this is where my comment came. Yes, there has been a scientific method for a long time, but it was opposed by the Church of that time

Absolutely. And fortunately, thanks to technology, the range of what we see has become far more detailed, and our view of the world (and hence what we choose to accept as fact) appropriately closer to reality. Go us!

And we do go... We go up into orbit and see the earth and the sun from an objective perspective. We go down into cells on a microscopic level and see the inner workings. And nowhere there have we seen an indication of god.

Although some people are able to see the material world as full of indications of god. It all depends on how you look at things, really.

Keep reminding? This is the first thing I have EVER said on this forum on the 'evil' of religion.

OK, I did exaggerate.





So this is where my comment came. Yes, there has been a scientific method for a long time, but it was opposed by the Church of that time


I think it was Mendel, the Catholic monk, who was the first one (that we know of) who cottoned onto inheritance. That doesn't sound like a grasping, stifling church. Of course, it may have been that he used the scientific method in spite of the church. But at least it did not prevent him from carrying out his investigations.

Edit: I think it was the church that opposed the view that the world came about purely through natural causes, but that is not the same as stifling the scientific method. It would have supported the scientific method, so long as it did not threaten it's power.

I think it was Mendel, the Catholic monk, who was the first one (that we know of) who cottoned onto inheritance. That doesn't sound like a grasping, stifling church. Of course, it may have been that he used the scientific method in spite of the church. But at least it did not prevent him from carrying out his investigations.

Mendel who published his result in 1865? Long after, say Galileo? And Mendel's results are in no way controversial and contrary to Christian teaching.

Yes of course it would be easy to think that, its also easy to beleive in santa or any number or ridiculous ideas if you dont know any better. My point is that if the scientific method had existed back then, they couldnt have come up with the sun revolving around the earth even back then and stuck with it as scientifically viable.

Santa was invented by Coka Cola, not the church. I don't know any adult that actually believed in Santa.

Mendel who published his result in 1865? Long after, say Galileo? And Mendel's results are in no way controversial and contrary to Christian teaching.

Err, ...could you be a little more specific as to what your point actually is?

Santa was invented by Coka Cola, not the church. I don't know any adult that actually believed in Santa.

Fine, deliberately miss the point. Substitute santa for any adult belief you find ridiculous, alien abduction, demons, telekenisis etc.

Err, ...could you be a little more specific as to what your point actually is?

As an example of science held back by the Church, Mendel is not a good example. Galileo for example is. The Church has not been forgiving to those that did not comply with strict Christian theology...

But let's drop this 'the Church is evil' argument of mine and carry on.

Fine, deliberately miss the point. Substitute santa for any adult belief you find ridiculous, alien abduction, demons, telekenisis etc.


Settle down. I got your point. I don't disagree with you. Just wondered how many people realized that Santa was a financially motivated creation, rather than a religiously motivated one.

Err, ...could you be a little more specific as to what your point actually is?

I think his point was that the church was very adverse to ideas which came into conflict with its dogma. Anything else was fine but Galileo came into conflict with that so he was punished. Mendel wasnt because the church didnt have a view on his work.

As an example of science held back by the Church, Mendel is not a good example. Galileo for example is. The Church has not been forgiving to those that did not comply with strict Christian theology...

But let's drop this 'the Church is evil' argument of mine and carry on.

I'm with you there. I'm no fan of the Catholic church anyway.

I think his point was that the church was very adverse to ideas which came into conflict with its dogma. Anything else was fine but Galileo came into conflict with that so he was punished. Mendel wasnt because the church didnt have a view on his work.

Which was what my point was, so I was not sure if he was agreeing, disagreeing, making another point, etc.

The scientific method is merely another construct for understanding the world. The idea that the universe is knowable, based on an underlying system of laws that are testable and that these laws are discoverable, verifyable and within the comprehension of humankind - this is the cornerstone of the paradigm. There needs to be a kind of faith that these assumptions are correct - and while observation appears to support them there is no absoluteness. Within the method there is no asertion that God does not exist - only that there is no testable proof that verifies this one way or the other.

So all understanding of the universe depends on a kind of faith. That being said the scientific method is the most objective construct developed to investigate the nature of the universe and the place of humans within it - which is what it really is all about.

Some people do define it that way; it's odd.
So you DO realize that there can be multiple definitions, or that
The question then becomes if the definition makes sense.


You go into debates without having done any groundwork? You just blindly charge in? What sort of idiot are you?
Ummm, I think we are having a problem with the point of debates. You are comparing a debate to a war, a battle for winning.
It is.


Also, I have done groundwork throughout my life.
Not for this debate, you haven't.

And when you can show that I have used any fallacies, be my guest.



You would not appreciate it if Tekania cited you a half-dozen ID books, even if he meant it.
Only in the sense that ID is absolute rubbish.
A little quick on the trigger there?
No.


Find the assumption(s).
*looks*

None.


revealed knowledge" is just ad hoc. There's no way to differentiate it from something someone just made up.
That's what I was saying and you kept denying.
NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING! YOU WERE SAYING THAT IT'S ALL RELATIVE, SO WE SHOULD BELIEVE IT!


THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL. You are saying that it is impossible (a positive statement that you have no proof for). I am saying that it is, in fact, possible (You can't rule it out, I can't prove that "xer theology" is right.).
So you agree with my opinion of your crap: you want people to believe every single statement that comes out of everyone's mouths, just because someone said it.


Today, it takes a large percentage of a person's life to become educated enough to perform a single job. Information is exploding, and there's simply too much to learn. A nice change from a huge lack, but it does reveal the problem. We can hardly learn our own world, much less the metaphysical. The human capacity to understand is indeed limited.
Only from a temporal sense that we have a finite lifespan. But that in no way attacks our ability to understand. It's just a bound on the amount we can learn due to that we are mortal. But it has nothing to do with our ability to learn. Nothing.
Kind of a big obstacle, no?
No.


To reiterate, the speed of a computer defines much of its power.
Sorry, but the Megahertz Myth is just that...a myth.


The ability to do anything possible" would be a poor definition.
Tell that to the xers.
I've NEVER heard this definition in real life.
I have. Many, many times. In fact, do a google groups search in alt.atheism for Keith Johnson. He uses that "definition".

Or you can just look here: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html

Or here: http://answers.org/apologetics/omnipotence.html

Or here: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec21.html


It's not a flame; it's a correct name. They worship the death of jesus, get all flustered about death, but somehow want death so they can be with god again. It's a death-cult.
I think you should find it difficult to not find that offensive.
Why?


Besides, if you knew Christian theology,
I do. The focus is on death. Death of jesus. Died for our sins. Must repent before death. When you die, it's too late. Must prepare for the afterlife. This world is just a veil of tears, and the flesh is evil; what's important lies after death (Aquinas). Everything you do in this life is to prepare for the next, which requires DEATH.

The iconography of the cross. Death. Death came into the world via sin, and the wages of sin are death.

So--gonna tell me I don't know xer theology? C'mon, let me laugh at you some more.


No, the fact that you think that you can't "prove" anything with science (when we've proven a host of things) makes you a bad scientist. Observation of something makes for confirmation, and thus "proof". It's like evolution has been proven as a fact--the change in gene frequencies has been observed. Speciation has been observed. Therefore, it has been "proven".

But, according to you then, evolution is "not proven" or "not proved".

See what happens when you make basic errors, like not grasping that facts constitute proof?
Your misunderstanding of science is to blame, BAAWA.
I have no misunderstanding of science. By definition, if we observe something via the scientific method, and observe it over and over, those observations are FACTS, and thus PROOF that something happened.

You just don't like the fact that I know more than you.


You missed the point
No, I got the point. I countered the "perhaps....", as it's just an ad hoc rationalization.
That wasn't his point at all.
That was his point.


What evidence is there for the deity? And what is this deity?
In context, your position is that god/God CANNOT exist. This is a positive statement,
No, it is not.


Your ontology has failed to provide evidence.
Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
Incorrect.
No, I'm correct. I am not making any positive claims.

And your derisive "popular ontology" shows how very little you know of ontology.

[snip your whining]



(something no pixie or fairie myth I have ever seen claims - as they are constantly getting caught and always have rules they must follow), would not be supernatural - they would be natural, and within the realm of that which can be measured. If they exist, we will one day measure them. Considering that we haven't yet, I don't really think they exist.
Oh, but you can't even think that, for that is arrogance. There's always some possibility, right? You can't have any opinion one way or the other, even if it is "I don't really think they exist". You have to be utterly open-minded about it.

Just giving you some of your own medicine.
BAAWA, he was referring to the "natural", within-bounds fairies, etc.
And?


Also, he doesn't think they exist.
I showed that such is arrogance. How dare someone think that something might not exist! What chutzpah! We have to be open-minded and tolerant of every single proposition, right? After all, we could be wrong. We could be wrong that such-and-such amount of cyanide will kill a human. We could be wrong that a molecule of water is 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 of oxygen (something we have even proven with electrolysis, but proof doesn't exist in science, right?)

The only true science!!!! Are you trying to start a religion? Physicanity? Please, if you really are as old as your post suggested, don't say such things.

A far better man than I is credited with saying "Physics is the only real science, the rest is butterfly-collecting." (Ernest Rutherford, the discoverer of the atomic nucleus.)

I suppose physics has a satisfactory explanation of something like the blood-clotting pathway, or eyesight, or something like variation in finch beak size. That would be why biology is a separate discipline to physics, rather than a sub-division of physics.

All science is a sub-division of physics because physics is needed to explain the "why" rather than the "how". Physics lies behind chemisty which in turn props up biology.

That would make you older than my dad. I suppose I would have expected you to be more......careful with some of your posts, given the level of experience you should have had.

Age does have one disadvantage, you find yourself correcting the errors of the young for the umteenth time.

hmmmm, may be, I'll have to think that one over some more......you could be right....

Well it is the language of physics, and as I've said physics lies at the root of all science.

I said that circles do not exist in the material world, not that they do not exist. A circle exists as a concept within mathematics. When we see something in nature that looks round, we immediately think of a circle. Thus we do find round-ish objects. If you would care to demonstrate a perfect circle that exists in the material world, have a go.[quote]

Sure, take a dead-calm pool of water and drop a non-rotating spherical object vertically into its centre. Now watch the circles.

On the subject of circles, the story I always liked was when Giotto was asked by Pope Boniface VIII to prove his skill as an artist, Giotto drew a perfect circle freehand.

[quote]I agree that humans have discovered math rather than created it, although, of course it all depends on your definitions of 'discover' and 'create'.


Save that for another thread.


Nope, we don't know what gravity really is. We can describe it's effects. But what is that attractive force? Why would matter be attracted to itself?

It doesn't, at least not until you get enough mass to create a curvature in space/time.

Why is the attraction virtually instant, so fast that we cannot even detect its speed?

At the moment we can't arrive at a speed because we cannot move enough mass to allow the detection.

How do we know it is a particle?

In effect, it isn't (and it is). It is a force carrier (a Gauge boson) which, to make life easier, is normally looked on as being a particle.

And how would such particles keep me 'glued' to earth.

Mmmmm. They don't really. What they do is to distort space/time and you just happen to need energy to get out of that distortion.

The scientific method is merely another construct for understanding the world. The idea that the universe is knowable, based on an underlying system of laws that are testable and that these laws are discoverable, verifyable and within the comprehension of humankind - this is the cornerstone of the paradigm. There needs to be a kind of faith that these assumptions are correct - and while observation appears to support them there is no absoluteness. Within the method there is no asertion that God does not exist - only that there is no testable proof that verifies this one way or the other.

So all understanding of the universe depends on a kind of faith. That being said the scientific method is the most objective construct developed to investigate the nature of the universe and the place of humans within it - which is what it really is all about.

I would tend to agree with you mostly. However, you left something unsaid, and that is that there is a good deal of knowledge about our world that is worthwhile and significant and that has not been discovered using the scientific process. When put in it's place, you can easily see just how small and limited our progress has been through the scientific process. We don't know how those old folk built the pyramids, for example, but it was perhaps without the scientific process. Their civilisation was a major feat. There are plenty of examples of impressive wonders in the ancient world. But let us not stop there. Just how much of the knowledge in our modern civilisation comes from science? I suggest rather little.

Put my main point is that when you say that there is no assertion that God does not exist (within the scientific method), there is an implication that if he does exists, he cannot be discovered. This is certainly true, based on the restrictions of the scientific method. However, unless you point out just how small the scientific method really is, how limited, and how futile it is at trying to answer some of the bigger questions about our universe, one may get the impression that since knowledge from the scientific method is all the knowledge that we really need or that is worth knowing, then we are justified in arguing that God most likely does not exist.

I'm curious as to whether you would change your opinion after reading this http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

At least you will find Behe saying more than that. And an article from Wells is there also
Ummmm....all of ID breaks down to "goddidit". Everything else of ID is just smoke-and-mirrors to cover for "goddidit".

Nope, we don't know what gravity really is.
The warpage of spacetime around matter. We've known that for nearly a century.

Ummmm....all of ID breaks down to "goddidit". Everything else of ID is just smoke-and-mirrors to cover for "goddidit".

Nope. That's not the argument. And if you disagree, I suggest you prove your worth as a debator and post more than two sentences to prove your point (since you are the one making this claim). Otherwise, I consider it a waste of my time to replying to your single sentence posts consisting of three words.

The warpage of spacetime around matter. We've known that for nearly a century.
That is perhaps what gravity does, but it tells me zippo about what it is.

That is perhaps what gravity does, but it tells me zippo about what it is.
Edit stated better by wikpedia


Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles. Weight is determined by the mass of an object and its location in a gravitational field. While a great deal is known about the properties of gravity, the ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question. General relativity is the most successful theory of gravitation to date. It postulates that mass and energy curve space-time, resulting in the phenomenon known as gravity.

No that’s what gravity IS

What it DOES is cause a force of attraction to a mass

When you think about it, a warpage of spacetime around matter, just how enlightened does that make one feel? Just how much does that really tell you? What does it say about a molecular level of forces. I expect something like the definition of Van der Waal force, or hydrophilic/hydrophobic forces, or ionic forces, or magnetism, or for heaven's sake, something a bit more descriptive than a warpage of spacetime around matter. Otherwise it sounds more like superstition.

When you think about it, a warpage of spacetime around matter, just how enlightened does that make one feel? Just how much does that really tell you? What does it say about a molecular level of forces. I expect something like the definition of Van der Waal force, or hydrophilic/hydrophobic forces, or ionic forces, or magnetism, or for heaven's sake, something a bit more descriptive than a warpage of spacetime around matter. Otherwise it sounds more like superstition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

There you go more description on the cause

they should teach science in science lessons, not christianity!

I would tend to agree with you mostly. However, you left something unsaid, and that is that there is a good deal of knowledge about our world that is worthwhile and significant and that has not been discovered using the scientific process. When put in it's place, you can easily see just how small and limited our progress has been through the scientific process. We don't know how those old folk built the pyramids, for example, but it was perhaps without the scientific process. Their civilisation was a major feat. There are plenty of examples of impressive wonders in the ancient world. But let us not stop there. Just how much of the knowledge in our modern civilisation comes from science? I suggest rather little.

Put my main point is that when you say that there is no assertion that God does not exist (within the scientific method), there is an implication that if he does exists, he cannot be discovered. This is certainly true, based on the restrictions of the scientific method. However, unless you point out just how small the scientific method really is, how limited, and how futile it is at trying to answer some of the bigger questions about our universe, one may get the impression that since knowledge from the scientific method is all the knowledge that we really need or that is worth knowing, then we are justified in arguing that God most likely does not exist.

The scientific method as laid out in modern science is relatively quite new - and I would asert that all new scientific and technological advances in the past 150 years has been dominated by investigation through this paradigm. True that there are many great advances that happened prior to the "invention" of the scientific method - but I think you will find that even ancient Egyptians had a school of thought based on experimentation and observation that caputres the essence of the scientific method (without perhaps prescribing to all its current assumptions.) Pyramid engineers did not pray for divine guidance on how to build - well they may have - but there was also careful planning, mistakes were made and adjustments and learning happened from those mistakes.

Modern science has no place for spirituality in it as there is a) no verifiable proof that it exists one way or the other, b) no technology to test for it and c) no paradigm that adequately explains it in modern scientific theory. If these conditions were to change - with the development of a testable theory - then perhaps the "bigger questions" could be looked in to. Realistically the objective, verifiable/ testable, knowable theory that the scientific method is is very new. Modern psychology has only existed for 100 years. Because of this gap in the scientific methods vision (as it were) leaves the issue unanswered (most good scientists would conclude that there is no proof or disproof of God's existance) and therefore belief in the scientific method does not disqualify belief in other non-fundamentalist belief systems.

A man who knows something knows that he knows nothing at all.

Something that I've noticed when issues, such as this, are raised is the attack that Individuals who are Creationists recieve. That's fine, we have free speech in this country. Yet many times individuals will make comments that are totally made on the assumption that believing in design as the source of life on earth or the universe is invalid.

Why does this matter? Merriam Webster defines religion as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". By that definition, even holding to scientific principles, that exclude Creationism or Intelligent Design (here after refered to as IE), without acknowledging any proofs or evidences otherwise with extreme beligerancy is... religious. In fact I would postulate that such individuals are actually making their sciences their religion. To go a step further, hiding behind "The Scientific Method" and using it as the only prism to view the entire world and all of history is synonymous to the Protestant Fundamental doctrine of Solo Scriptura (the idea that the Protestant Bible is the only means by which one judges and measures doctrines).

Why does this matter? The 1968 Supreme Court Case of Epperson vs. Arkansas. An Arkansas statute forbade teachers in public schools from teaching the "theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals." A teacher determined that the law was in valid and lost her job for violating it. The Supreme Court of the United States was called in to review this statute which made it unlawful for teachers in state schools to teach human evolution .
The Court held that the Arkansas statute forbidding the teaching of evolution in public learning institutions was contrary to the freedom of religion mandate of the First Amendment, and was also in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled that a state may not eliminate ideas from a school's curricula solely because the ideas come in conflict with the beliefs of certain religious groups. In this case, the law that compelled the evolution doctrine to be removed from the course of study was passed to agree with the religious point*of*view of certain fundamentalists. Thus, the reason for removing the doctrine was to aid a religious point*of*view and, therefore, was violative of the First Amendment. The Court said that the law must require religious neutrality. -cited from "http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/CourtCases.htm"
Now I'll admit, I am a Creationist (isn't it strange that Creationists are honest enough to come out and admit such while those that are not who engage in such arguments are not so forthcoming, hiding behind titles such as... forgive me, I digress). Regardless of my view of Origin of Life I'd like to return the argument to where it will be eventually fought out. The Courtroom and Soft Sciences. The question I raise? Isn't any concept of the Origin best left for the Soft Sciences? After all, history and even Anthropology is a "Soft Science". If we are willing to admit that the history of man is open to interpretation shouldn't the History of Earth and the Universe be as well? By teaching Evolution as THE ONLY Origin, if not any view, and then legislate such viewpoint do we not go against the decision of Epperson vs. Arkansas?

Oh, but you can't even think that, for that is arrogance. There's always some possibility, right? You can't have any opinion one way or the other, even if it is "I don't really think they exist". You have to be utterly open-minded about it.

Just giving you some of your own medicine.

Strawman. I have stated no such thing.

I never said you can't think that there are no fairies, pixies, or even god(s). I never said that you can't have an opinion. I simply said that you can't state that opinion as if it were proven fact. We have not proven that even fairies or pixies don't exist - we simply have very little evidence to suggest that they do, none of it empirical. Thus, I can state that it is my opinion that fairies and pixies do not exist. I cannot say, "Fairies and pixies abosolutely, under no circumstance, can possibly exist."

So you can't observe that I have a watch on my wrist, and use the scientific method to prove that I have a watch on my wrist? You're utterly daft!

Again, a strawman. You aren't talking about the scientific method here - you are talking about taking a measurement, which is only a tiny portion of the scientific method. If I define what the measurement should be if you are wearing a watch, and I take that measurement, I can say that you are wearing a watch.

However, science doesn't deal in, "Is such and such wearing a watch?" That doesn't explain anything - it is simply a measurement. We hypothesize something and then test it - not simply make measurements.

A better example would be if I hypothesized that you always seem to know what time it is because you are wearing a watch. I might do a few experiments that included checking an official source for time (ie. the atomic clock), asking you what time it is, observing you glancing at your watch, and checking what time your watch said. Every time I repeated it, that would lend more support to the idea that you knew what time it was because you are wearing a watch. But then, on the 100th time I try it, I may find that you give me the correct answer, but your watch is incorrect, or that you aren't wearing a watch that day, or some other unexpected result. This would not support my hypothesis and, in fact, unless I could demonstrate that it was an anomaly caused by measurement error or something along those lines, would disprove my hypothesis.

No, the fact that you think that you can't "prove" anything with science (when we've proven a host of things) makes you a bad scientist.

Many things have been thought to be proven, and then have been disproven. This is the way science works. No true scientist can perform their job without knowing that everything, even the assumptions they base their work upon, are open to possibly being disproven.

Meanwhile, we haven't "proven" anything with science. Because of the way the method works, there is always some doubt. Over time, that doubt can become miniscule, but it never reaches 0.0000000000000000000%. Anyone who doesn't know this cannot properly be a scientist.

Observation of something makes for confirmation, and thus "proof".

Observation != science. Science is much more than mere observation.

But, according to you then, evolution is "not proven" or "not proved".

It isn't. It is very well-supported, and more support is being gathered daily. It cannot be proven, however, as the next measurement may blow it out of the water.

See what happens when you make basic errors, like not grasping that facts constitute proof?

I'm not the one making errors here, my dear. Pick up any book that discusses the logical process of science. In fact, pick up any grade school science textbook and read up on the scientific method.

But the top minds of the field *don't* dispute it.

Yes, my dear, they do. Try reading up on it a little bit. There are all sorts of disputes - all sorts of ideas as to what might have happened - in other words, all sorts of hypotheses. We don't really have the means at this point to test any of them very well, so we do what we can. But none are universally accepted.

No, you have not, since you feel there are no restrictions.

Strawman once again. I never said anything about my own opinions.

And how can you even make any claims about "outside the universe"?

Good question. So why are you doing it?

Isn't saying that something exists "outside the universe" merely trying to insulate the claim from being examined? Isn't it just a cop-out?

For some, it might be. For others, it is a discussion of logic.

Oh, yes you are. You're making some silly leap to say "Well, we don't really know what reality is, so I'll just shut my eyes to it".

I've never said any such thing. You are really fond of strawmen, aren't you?

What does "being" mean apart from the universe? I shall ask that until you define it for me.

The same thing it means inside the universe - simply outside that which can be measured by us.

I'm not strapping anything on to it; it is there because we exist in the universe!

Yes, we do. Does that mean that everything does? Is all of existence run by where you exist?

No, you have not. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence for your claims.

I haven't made any claims. I've just pointed out that you can't back yours up.

All you do is scream at me like a 2 year old, saying "YOU'RE WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG", but you never bother to back up your claims.

I have never once said you are wrong. I have pointed out that you might be, and therefore cannot claim your opinion as absolute fact.

Again, I don't need to.

You do to make an absolute statement like, "It is impossible for any god(s) to exist."

Oh, but that can change. Why are you strapping on ideas? Why are you making a decision? Don't you know that we don't know much, so you can't make any decisions whatsoever?

Just giving you some of your own medicine.

Another strawman! Wow, this is getting ridiculous.

I never said we can't make any decisions whatsoever. I said that we cannot claim those decisions with absolute certainty unless we have all the possible evidence.

I do, my dear. I am making no positive claims whatsoever.

Yes, you are. You are saying that it is completely and logically impossible for any god(s) to exist. That is a positive claim. If you said, "I don't know if any god(s) exist, that would not be a positive claim. If you said, "I know for a fact that god(s) exist," that would be a positive claim, as is, "I know for a fact that god(s) do not exist."

Nope. That's not the argument. And if you disagree, I suggest you prove your worth as a debator and post more than two sentences to prove your point (since you are the one making this claim). Otherwise, I consider it a waste of my time to replying to your single sentence posts consisting of three words.

Actually I question the honest of the ID proponents. There have been claims that they are not pushing their religious views and they are not suggesting the ID is God.

However, I am reading Dembowski's book and in the first chapter alone there are numerous God references.

As said in another thread, Dembowski is an orthodox Christian and none that I know would say that God may not have done it.

Even in this link; the articles are more about why Darwin is wrong then why ID is right.

Nothing even written even gives me pause to think well maybe.....

I would tend to agree with you mostly. However, you left something unsaid, and that is that there is a good deal of knowledge about our world that is worthwhile and significant and that has not been discovered using the scientific process. When put in it's place, you can easily see just how small and limited our progress has been through the scientific process. We don't know how those old folk built the pyramids, for example, but it was perhaps without the scientific process. Their civilisation was a major feat. There are plenty of examples of impressive wonders in the ancient world. But let us not stop there. Just how much of the knowledge in our modern civilisation comes from science? I suggest rather little.

Of course we know how they built the pyramids - where have you been the last 40 years? As for science, the ancient world was fairly advanced.

Put my main point is that when you say that there is no assertion that God does not exist (within the scientific method), there is an implication that if he does exists, he cannot be discovered. This is certainly true, based on the restrictions of the scientific method. However, unless you point out just how small the scientific method really is, how limited, and how futile it is at trying to answer some of the bigger questions about our universe, one may get the impression that since knowledge from the scientific method is all the knowledge that we really need or that is worth knowing, then we are justified in arguing that God most likely does not exist.

Limited? Futile? Science knows no limits and is very far from futile. Every single precept of religion has been exposed as false by science. The need for religion lies in our primitive past not in the 21st century.

So far there has been no evidence put forward for a god that hasn't fallen apart when you begine to test it. There is neither the evidence for god nor the evidence for the need for a god - to believe otherwise in noting short of childish.

That is perhaps what gravity does, but it tells me zippo about what it is.

Nonononono, that is what it IS as well as what it DOES. If there is a force carrier for gravity it may not operate in the 4D universe we inhabit,

I say we give every one a wacking stick, and any one is allowd to wack some one for doing or saying somthing stupied....



Why are you glaring at me, and wahts with the stick?

Most science has nothing to do with catergorization.

This is true. But the science that does have to do with categorization does so by deducing relationships between things.

I've known and worked with hundreds of scientists over the years, mostly in physics and astonomy, and I've not met a single scientist who doesn't work long hours to PROVE things.

No, we work long hours to SUPPORT them. Some people use the word "proof", but "proof" is a word that can really only be used in systems we have completely designed - like mathematics. We have defined the terms of mathematics, so we can prove things withing (always based upon whatever assumptions we make, of course).

The scientific method, logically, cannot be used to provide such a proof. Everything is open to possible disproof, and is thus never held to be absolutely proven. It may have so much support that we treat it as if it is proven, as we couldn't really progress if we kept testing the same thing over and over and over again. However, it is not actually proven, as we can never, at least not with the scientific method, know something is true with 100% certainty.

They know that is they want to be taken seriously then they have to follow the standards.

Within science, you must follow science standards.

Within a given branch of philosophy, you must follow the standards for that branch of philosophy.

Within the process of factory work, you must follow the standards given for that work.

The standards in each case are not the same. If a scientist, in his capacity as a scientist, is to be taken seriously, he must follow the scientific method. If a person who happens to be a scientist wants to discuss theology/philosophy/even astrology on his own time, outside his capacity as a scientist, it has no bearing whatsoever on his ability to apply the scientific method within his work.

Not good with science are you.

Actually, I am.

Unlike you, I have actually studied the scientific method, and I understand its uses and its limitations. I am not putting some kind of worshipful faith in it. it is a tool, and like all tools, can be used in some situations but not others. I wouldn't use a wrench to try and make a hole in the wall for a screw - I would use a drill. In much the same way, I wouldn't use theology to to do scientific work or science to delve into the realm of theology.

And no, there was no question mark there because it was not a question it was a statement of fact.

Such arrogance. Would you like to see my credentials?

Scientists do PROVE things in many areas. There are some things that are PROVEN beyond any doubt. Only a total idiot would claim nothing can be known with 100% certainty - if some things are not known with 100% certainty then the whole fabric of science fall apart.

No, it doesn't. We prove things as close to 100% as possible and then use them as assumptions in further work. However, we know that we might find a case in the future where they don't work. Newton's Laws are the prime example of this. They were believed to be fundamental physical laws. Then, we found out that they aren't - they are simply a good enough approximation in situations with relatively large masses and slow speeds. The fabric of science didn't fall apart. The fabric of physics didn't even fall apart. We simply came up with a new theory to describe all situations we have thus encountered - including those in which Newton did not provide a good enough approximation. In the future, we may find that quantum mechanics is also flawed, and we will change the theory yet again.

In fact, if we were to assume that the discoveries of science are proven with 100% certainty, science would grind to a halt. If we encountered something that could not be explained with the current understanding, we would have to do nothing, as we could not examine th ebasis on which we were understanding things.

Well, lets see. I was studying Physics at university level at the age of 14. In the last 15 years I've acted as editor or technical proofreader on 12 books (mostly cosmology) and hundreds of magazine articles. I've also lectured on astonomy and cosmology. I've lived and breathed science since I was 9 years old so I'm a lot more qualified to talk on the subject than most.

And yet you don't even understand the logical restrictions of the scientific method. Sad, isn't it?

When you think about it, a warpage of spacetime around matter, just how enlightened does that make one feel? Just how much does that really tell you? What does it say about a molecular level of forces. I expect something like the definition of Van der Waal force, or hydrophilic/hydrophobic forces, or ionic forces, or magnetism, or for heaven's sake, something a bit more descriptive than a warpage of spacetime around matter. Otherwise it sounds more like superstition.

Well we know it is not superstition because the warping of space/time has been observed and was one of the proofs for Relativity.

There are only four Fundamental interaction or forces (all others being effects of one or more of the fundamental ones). They are (with their force carrier) as follows: Strong nuclear force (gluon), Electromagnetic force (photon), Weak nuclear force (W and Z bosons) and Gravity (graviton?).

The graviton has yet to be discovered and is the holy grail which could unlock the unified field theory physicists yearn for. Problem is, for the graviton to exist, it may need to exist outside our 4D space/time universe.

As for assumptions, one common idea within science is the assumption that everything that we observe in the material world can be accounted for using laws of nature and randomness.

Still trying to mislead people I see. Lies do not become you, my dear. That is a common idea held by some scientists, just as theism is a common idea held by most scientists (and most people in the world). There is no science that is dependent upon any such assumption - therefore the assumption is not made in science.

There is an assumption that we can explain things that occur naturally through natural processes - but that sounds an awful lot like common sense, doesn't it? It would be like saying, "We can explain flying by delineating the flying process."



Oh, I see, my mistake. Yes, just how does one do those sorts of calculations, given that there is an awful lot about biological systems that we don't understand. My guess is that it is a process whereby you, e.g., count the number of nucleotide bases in a gene (about a thousand, in bacteria), and calculate the number of mutations (which occurs for every one in six millions bases, approximately) needed to convert that gene, base by base (four bases for DNA), into an different gene coding for a protein of a different function. Something like that, anyway.

It isn't just about how many mutations you need (and assuming that they happen one at a time or one in each generation is already a HUGE assumption), it is about how likely it is that a particular set of mutations will occur. However, to make such a calculation, you have to remove any idea of randomness from the process and make the assumption that those particular mutations had to have happened - that it couldn't possibly have happened any other way and ended up rather different. This is a rather large problem, as directed evolution is not a part of the theory - and is, in fact, something you only hear of from people who don't understand the theory at all.

Is that relevant to this discussion, or do you just like to keep reminding people of the 'evils' of religion?

It is relevant to a discussion of the Copernican vs. the Geocentric model of the Solar System.

The church taught that the Earth was the center of the Universe. It also taught that all heavenly bodies were perfect (no crater marks, that's for sure), and that everything revolved around the Earth (other planets had no moons).

As more and more evidence began to build up to the contrary of these teachings, many "scientists" held to faith, rather than what logically came out of the data. The ended up with hugely complicated geometric models for how the sun really could be orbiting the Earth. They tried to silence Galileo when he dared to assert that other planets had their own moons and that our moon was "pock-marked", as it were. Giving religion control of science causes all sorts of problems.

I think his point was that the church was very adverse to ideas which came into conflict with its dogma. Anything else was fine but Galileo came into conflict with that so he was punished. Mendel wasnt because the church didnt have a view on his work.

....which is actually rather odd, when you consider the way the church viewed inheritance and birth.

The church, before Mendelian genetics, held that a baby grew from a man implanting his seed in a woman. The woman was thought to contribute nothing material at all, except a womb to hold the developing fetus. In fact, the entire explanation of how original sin is supposed to be passed on and how Christ avoided it by being born of a virgin (who was, herself born of a virgin, according to the Catholic Church) is completely based in the idea that original sin is only passed on in the seed of a man.

I guess it wasn't all that important to them though, or they didn't see how Medelian genetics contradicts it, or maybe Mendel just wasn't one of those "in your face," kind of guys, or maybe they assumed it only worked in plants. Hehe.

Edit stated better by wikpedia


Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles. Weight is determined by the mass of an object and its location in a gravitational field. While a great deal is known about the properties of gravity, the ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question. General relativity is the most successful theory of gravitation to date. It postulates that mass and energy curve space-time, resulting in the phenomenon known as gravity.

Thus, based on this source, all the claims we have seen here that gravity is fully understood and that it's cause is 100% proven is full of shit.

Something that I've noticed when issues, such as this, are raised is the attack that Individuals who are Creationists recieve. That's fine, we have free speech in this country. Yet many times individuals will make comments that are totally made on the assumption that believing in design as the source of life on earth or the universe is invalid.

That is because it is invalid

Why does this matter? Merriam Webster defines religion as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". By that definition, even holding to scientific principles, that exclude Creationism or Intelligent Design (here after refered to as IE), without acknowledging any proofs or evidences otherwise with extreme beligerancy is... religious. In fact I would postulate that such individuals are actually making their sciences their religion. To go a step further, hiding behind "The Scientific Method" and using it as the only prism to view the entire world and all of history is synonymous to the Protestant Fundamental doctrine of Solo Scriptura (the idea that the Protestant Bible is the only means by which one judges and measures doctrines).

Why does this matter? The 1968 Supreme Court Case of Epperson vs. Arkansas.
Now I'll admit, I am a Creationist (isn't it strange that Creationists are honest enough to come out and admit such while those that are not who engage in such arguments are not so forthcoming, hiding behind titles such as... forgive me, I digress). Regardless of my view of Origin of Life I'd like to return the argument to where it will be eventually fought out. The Courtroom and Soft Sciences. The question I raise? Isn't any concept of the Origin best left for the Soft Sciences? After all, history and even Anthropology is a "Soft Science". If we are willing to admit that the history of man is open to interpretation shouldn't the History of Earth and the Universe be as well? By teaching Evolution as THE ONLY Origin, if not any view, and then legislate such viewpoint do we not go against the decision of Epperson vs. Arkansas?

Science is science, and stands up to testing. Religion and creation have their place - for instance you cannot teach history or geography without involving religion - but there should be no place in schools where children could remotely be led to believe there was any truth in them.

Nope. That's not the argument.
Yep, it is. ID = "goddidit", with smoke and mirrors to cover for it.

That is perhaps what gravity does, but it tells me zippo about what it is.
No, that's what gravity is: the warpage of spacetime around matter. That's how it's defined. The more warped (i.e. the greater the gravimetric from one place to another), the greater the "force" is.

Oh, but you can't even think that, for that is arrogance. There's always some possibility, right? You can't have any opinion one way or the other, even if it is "I don't really think they exist". You have to be utterly open-minded about it.

Just giving you some of your own medicine.
Strawman.
Nope, that's what you've stated.


I never said you can't think that there are no fairies, pixies, or even god(s).
Yes, you did. For it is arrogant to think that way, remember?



So you can't observe that I have a watch on my wrist, and use the scientific method to prove that I have a watch on my wrist? You're utterly daft!
Again, a strawman.
Again, not a strawman. I am talking about the scientific method here. Hypothesis: this person is wearing a watch on one of his wrists. Observation/testing: check the person's wrists. Do more testing. Conclusion: it is a proven fact that the person is wearing a watch on one of his wrists.

If you don't like the fact that you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about, and I'm pointing that out, then maybe you shouldn't be here.




No, the fact that you think that you can't "prove" anything with science (when we've proven a host of things) makes you a bad scientist.
Many things have been thought to be proven, and then have been disproven.
And many things have been proven, like speciation. Sorta that whole DNA evidence thing.

What, praytell, is your point?



Observation of something makes for confirmation, and thus "proof". Observation != science.
Strawman. I never said that observation was science.


Science is much more than mere observation.
But it requires observation.



But, according to you then, evolution is "not proven" or "not proved". It isn't.
It is.



See what happens when you make basic errors, like not grasping that facts constitute proof?
I'm not the one making errors here, my dear.
You are, my dear.



But the top minds of the field *don't* dispute it.
Yes, my dear, they do.
No, my dear, they do not. Try reading up on a little bit.

Here:
The Elegant Universe (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=YG2dU2JCeP&isbn=0375708111&itm=1), by Brian Greene

Fabric of the Cosmos (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=YG2dU2JCeP&isbn=0375412883&itm=4), by Brian Greene

He quotes (and is) one of the top minds in the field. There. Is. No. Dispute. Period.



No, you have not, since you feel there are no restrictions.
Strawman once again.
Not in the least, since you have stated your opinions.



And how can you even make any claims about "outside the universe"?
Good question. So why are you doing it?
I'm not.



Isn't saying that something exists "outside the universe" merely trying to insulate the claim from being examined? Isn't it just a cop-out?
For some, it might be. For others, it is a discussion of logic.
And for some, 2 + 2 = fish, but that doesn't make it so.



Oh, yes you are. You're making some silly leap to say "Well, we don't really know what reality is, so I'll just shut my eyes to it".
I've never said any such thing.
Yes, you have. You're really fond of lying, aren't you?



What does "being" mean apart from the universe? I shall ask that until you define it for me.
The same thing it means inside the universe
How do you know that? What is your ontological basis for making that claim?



I'm not strapping anything on to it; it is there because we exist in the universe!
Yes, we do. Does that mean that everything does?
Yes.



No, you have not. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence for your claims.
I haven't made any claims.
Yes, you have. You've claimed that existence apart from the universe is the same as inside. But how is it that you know that?



All you do is scream at me like a 2 year old, saying "YOU'RE WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG", but you never bother to back up your claims.
I have never once said you are wrong. I have pointed out that you might be, and therefore cannot claim your opinion as absolute fact.
IOW: you're claiming that I'm wrong. Thanks for trying to be wishy-washy.



Again, I don't need to.
You do to make an absolute statement like, "It is impossible for any god(s) to exist.
No, I do not need to.



Oh, but that can change. Why are you strapping on ideas? Why are you making a decision? Don't you know that we don't know much, so you can't make any decisions whatsoever?

Just giving you some of your own medicine.
Another strawman!
Not in the least.



I never said we can't make any decisions whatsoever.
Yes, you did.



I do, my dear. I am making no positive claims whatsoever.
Yes, you are. You are saying that it is completely and logically impossible for any god(s) to exist.
That's a conclusion, not a claim.

Thus, based on this source, all the claims we have seen here that gravity is fully understood and that it's cause is 100% proven is full of shit.
I've looked, and have seen no one saying that gravity is fully understood or that its cause is 100% proven.

Ergo, strawman.

This is true. But the science that does have to do with categorization does so by deducing relationships between things.

Which is a very small part of real science.


No, we work long hours to SUPPORT them. Some people use the word "proof", but "proof" is a word that can really only be used in systems we have completely designed - like mathematics.

Maths is not designed it is discovered.

We have defined the terms of mathematics, so we can prove things withing (always based upon whatever assumptions we make, of course).

The scientific method, logically, cannot be used to provide such a proof.

Rubbish.

Everything is open to possible disproof,[/ quote]

In the early stages, yes. But eventually you get to the point where the probability of a disproof becomes so small you can consider the matter proved.

[quote] and is thus never held to be absolutely proven. It may have so much support that we treat it as if it is proven, as we couldn't really progress if we kept testing the same thing over and over and over again. However, it is not actually proven, as we can never, at least not with the scientific method, know something is true with 100% certainty.

Uncertainty is part of the proof sometimes.



Within science, you must follow science standards.

Within a given branch of philosophy, you must follow the standards for that branch of philosophy.

Within the process of factory work, you must follow the standards given for that work.

The standards in each case are not the same. If a scientist, in his capacity as a scientist, is to be taken seriously, he must follow the scientific method. If a person who happens to be a scientist wants to discuss theology/philosophy/even astrology on his own time, outside his capacity as a scientist, it has no bearing whatsoever on his ability to apply the scientific method within his work.

I disagree. A true scientist would not get involved in something that is not scientific.



Actually, I am.

Unlike you, I have actually studied the scientific method, and I understand its uses and its limitations. I am not putting some kind of worshipful faith in it. it is a tool, and like all tools, can be used in some situations but not others.

Why would you not want to use science?

I wouldn't use a wrench to try and make a hole in the wall for a screw - I would use a drill. In much the same way, I wouldn't use theology to to do scientific work or science to delve into the realm of theology.

A spanner and a drill are both tools used by man. Science is not a tool and to compare theology to science is both stupid and insulting.

Such arrogance. Would you like to see my credentials?

You have already shown your lack of them by the rubbish you keep posting.

No, it doesn't. We prove things as close to 100% as possible and then use them as assumptions in further work. However, we know that we might find a case in the future where they don't work. Newton's Laws are the prime example of this. They were believed to be fundamental physical laws. Then, we found out that they aren't - they are simply a good enough approximation in situations with relatively large masses and slow speeds. The fabric of science didn't fall apart. The fabric of physics didn't even fall apart. We simply came up with a new theory to describe all situations we have thus encountered - including those in which Newton did not provide a good enough approximation. In the future, we may find that quantum mechanics is also flawed, and we will change the theory yet again.

Laws build upon laws. Newton works in most cases, Relativity in more. Doesn't make Newton wrong, his still work in most real-life cases.

Now if someone was to come up with soemthing that, for example, shows that the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant......

In fact, if we were to assume that the discoveries of science are proven with 100% certainty, science would grind to a halt. If we encountered something that could not be explained with the current understanding, we would have to do nothing, as we could not examine th ebasis on which we were understanding things.

You really do talk rubbish at times.

And yet you don't even understand the logical restrictions of the scientific method. Sad, isn't it?

It would be if there were any.

Nope, that's what you've stated.

Demonstrate a single place where I said you couldn't think that something doesn't exist, or that you couldn't have an opinion on it?

I'm waiting.....

Yes, you did. For it is arrogant to think that way, remember?

It is arrogant to claim to know something that you have no evidence for either way with absolute certainty. It is not arrogant to have an opinion on the matter. It is arrogance to say, "I can't prove it, but your view is absolutely impossible and mine is right."

Again, not a strawman. I am talking about the scientific method here. Hypothesis: this person is wearing a watch on one of his wrists. Observation/testing: check the person's wrists. Do more testing. Conclusion: it is a proven fact that the person is wearing a watch on one of his wrists.

Again, you are oversimplifying (the very definition of a strawman argument). These are not the types of things that science deals in. You are basically saying the same thing as:

Hypothesis: This is a meter long.
Test: Get out a meter stick and measure it.
Result: It is a meter long.

That isn't a hypothesis and a test - the entire thing is nothing more than a measurement.

Of course, if it were, you would have to have many, more ways to test whether or not someone is wearing a watch, as one test is never enough with the scientific method to lift a hypothesis to theory (which is, of course, the highest a scientific idea can get).

If you don't like the fact that you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about, and I'm pointing that out, then maybe you shouldn't be here.

In truth, I find your arrogance and apparent lack of understanding of both science and logic to be rather funny.

And many things have been proven, like speciation. Sorta that whole DNA evidence thing.

We have observed speciation. Of course, then again, we define what is and isn't a species, just like we define how long a meter is and then use it as a metric for measurements.

The scientific process isn't just the measurements. It is a hypothesis, a test of that hypothesis (the test generally requires quite a few measurements, but is not the measurements themselves) and a conclusion that the hypothesis is either disproven or supported.

"Speciation occurs" is not a hypothesis. It is an observation. "Speciation occurs by X process," is a hypothesis. We can test the hell out of that one - and support the hell out of it - and we have. We cannot, however, be sure that we won't find a flaw in the process tomorrow and have to re-hypothesize.

Strawman. I never said that observation was science.

Actually, you did. You have been equating a simple measurement to the scientific process by oversimplifying.

But it requires observation.

Of course it does. But the observation is not the sum total.

No, my dear, they do not. Try reading up on a little bit.

I have read up on it. I do find it interesting that you are getting the sum total of your knowledge from a single author. If I got all of my biology knowledge from a single author, I wouldn't know much at all, and most of the experiments I'm running would be way behind the curve.

He quotes (and is) one of the top minds in the field. There. Is. No. Dispute. Period.

"This one guy who is a leader in his field wrote a book and he quotes other guys in his field who agree with him. Therefore, there can't possibly be any dispute."

Yeah, that's logic right there.

Not in the least, since you have stated your opinions.

Really? What, pray tell, are they then?

I'm not.

By making the statement, "It is logically impossible for anything to exist outside the universe," you are very clearly discussing what is and is not outside the universe.

Yes, you have. You're really fond of lying, aren't you?

Point out that quote or anything remotely resembling it in anything I have said.

How do you know that? What is your ontological basis for making that claim?

The definition of being is a given. The word has been defined. It's meaning doesn't change because of location.

Yes.

How very illogical of you! The sum total of all of existence revolves around human beings?

Yes, you have. You've claimed that existence apart from the universe is the same as inside. But how is it that you know that?

Because existence is defined. Being is defined. Therefore, if there is existence outside the universe, it is defined in the same way as inside. Otherwise, there would be a different word for it, now wouldn't there?

IOW: you're claiming that I'm wrong. Thanks for trying to be wishy-washy.

There is a huge logical difference between pointing out that you might be wrong and saying that you are wrong. For all you know, I might completely agree with you on all of your opinions. That doesn't mean I can't point out that there is a possibility they are wrong.

No, I do not need to.

You keep stating this. Are you ever going to back it up?

Yes, you did.

Point to anywhere I ever stated that we can't make decisions.

That's a conclusion, not a claim.

It is a possible conclusion that you are claiming to be true. You don't pull conclusions out of thin air, you need to support them. In order to claim that they have absolute truth to them, you need to provide absolute proof for them. You have neither supported your claims, nor provided absolute proof.


I've looked, and have seen no one saying that gravity is fully understood or that its cause is 100% proven.


Every single time I or any one else has brought up the fact that they are not, we have been yelled at and told that, "Gravity is something we can prove! We know for a fact that it depends on X!"

Maths is not designed it is discovered.

Really? So we discovered that 2+2 =4 in exactly the same way we discovered the Americas?

Of course not.

Certain parts of math are based off of observations - calculus for example. However, much of it is arbitrarily assigned by human beings. We decided which digits represent which numbers. We decided that addition would mean finding the sum of two numbers. We decided that mathematics would be bound by a certain logic that we think matches the real world.

Theorems and properties of mathematics are discovered, but the underlying basis was created by human beings. In fact, quite a bit of time has been spent demonstrating that you cannot prove an axiom to be true - you simply must accept it as such. This is why mathematics is so very dependent upon the assumptions made at the outset.

In the early stages, yes. But eventually you get to the point where the probability of a disproof becomes so small you can consider the matter proved.

Considering it proven and actually proving it are two different things. In the first case, we admit that it might not be true, but since we have so much evidence to back it up and it has held thus, far, we will assume it to be true. This is the basis of scientific theory.

In the second, we say, "This is 100% correct and nothing will ever change my mind on that." To prove something means to have 100% certainty, not 99.9999999999999%.

I disagree. A true scientist would not get involved in something that is not scientific.

This is like saying, "A musician would not get involved in something that is not musical."

In other words, it is an idiotic statement.

Why would you not want to use science?

Because, logically, science can only be used in situation in which the scientific method can apply. It can only be used in situations for which we can make empirical measurements. I find myself occasionally interested in something outside the technical. I find myself interested in moral questions and ethics (the realm of some philosophy), religious questions (the realm of theology), finances (the realm of economics), music (which incorporates mathematics and physics, but the experience of it is really neither), etc. I'm sorry if I don't have a psychotic one-track mind.

A spanner and a drill are both tools used by man. Science is not a tool and to compare theology to science is both stupid and insulting.

Science is absolutely a tool. It is a logical process used to look at the world.

And, if you look at its history even for two seconds, you would know that science is a form of philosophy. It is much more restricted than many of areas of philosophy, being restricted to the scientific method itself - to logic and to empiricism, but it is philosophy. Theology is another form of philosophy, albeit with different restrictions. To claim that it is insulting to compare the two is like claiming that it is insulting to compare the process of smelting to the process of annealing.

Laws build upon laws.

Incorrect. A universal law is just that - universal. It applies to everything. Of course, a law (as you can see in any adequate description of the scientific method) is a theory that has so much support that we decide to call it a law. People tend to shy away from that a bit now.

Newton works in most cases, Relativity in more. Doesn't make Newton wrong, his still work in most real-life cases.

Actually, Newton doesn't work, not completely. It is, as I said, a good enough approximation, much like ignoring gravity in a problem might be, or assuming that a reaction goes to completiong might be. In using Newton's laws, someone is making an assumption that something doesn't affect their calculations. It actually does, but in some cases, the error is so small compared to the answer that it doesn't matter.

If we use relativity, however, we will get a more accurate answer, even in those situations where we normally use Newton. Thus, relativity supercedes Newton, as it can be used in all cases thus found, not just a subset of cases in which is is "good enough for government work", as it were.

You really do talk rubbish at times.

Not in the least. Claiming that something is proven 100% means that no amount of evidence will ever sway you to believe that it was incorrect. It wouldn't matter how much evidence was collected, you couldn't back out of it, as it was already proven 100% correct. Admitting, as science does, that there is uncertainty there - that it may seem to be proven correct, but is could still be disproven in the future - encourages you to keep questioning, keep experimenting, and keep discovering.

Now if someone was to come up with soemthing that, for example, shows that the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant......

Then the claim that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant would be disproven - exactly what I have been saying. If we say, we have proven with 100% certainity that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, then we would not be able to deal with any measurement that shows otherwise. We would have to throw out any measurement that seemed otherwise as some sort of error, since we would be saying that we have already proven this with 100% certainty.

However, if we say, "We're pretty damn sure that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, and because we are so sure of it, we will base our current theories upon this idea, but like all things in science, that is open to being disproven," then, should such a measurement ever be made, science would progress. We would have to discover what had changed the speed - and why. We would determine the rules that actually did govern the speed. And so on....

We would stand by some fundamentalist claim that it was "100% proven."

This is the way that science works.

It would be if there were any.

Really? So science isn't bound by the scientific method - a set of logical restrictions?

Nope, that's what you've stated.
Demonstrate a single place where I said you couldn't think that something doesn't exist, or that you couldn't have an opinion on it?
Every time you claim I'm arrogant for thinking that there's nothing apart from the universe.

Game. Set. Match.



Yes, you did. For it is arrogant to think that way, remember?
It is arrogant to claim to know something that you have no evidence for either way with absolute certainty. It is not arrogant to have an opinion on the matter.
Oh yes it is, for you are taking a stance, and you can't take a stance! That's arrogant! How dare you take a stance! What--do you think that you have even one millionth of the knowledge in the universe? How dare you make a decision!

Again, just giving you some of your medicine.



Again, not a strawman. I am talking about the scientific method here. Hypothesis: this person is wearing a watch on one of his wrists. Observation/testing: check the person's wrists. Do more testing. Conclusion: it is a proven fact that the person is wearing a watch on one of his wrists.
Again, you are oversimplifying
Again, I am not.



If you don't like the fact that you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about, and I'm pointing that out, then maybe you shouldn't be here. In truth, I find your arrogance and apparent lack of understanding of both science and logic to be rather funny.
Coincidentally, I find your wishy-washiness and utter lack of comprehension of both logic and the scientific method to be a hoot. Imagine that.



And many things have been proven, like speciation. Sorta that whole DNA evidence thing.
We have observed speciation.
And proved it.

Don't try your wishy-washy touchy-feely crap. It's worthless.



Strawman. I never said that observation was science.
Actually, you did.
Actually, I didn't.


You have been equating a simple measurement to the scientific process by oversimplifying.
No, I have not. Ergo, strawman.



But it requires observation.
Of course it does. But the observation is not the sum total.
Never said it was.



No, my dear, they do not. Try reading up on a little bit.
I have read up on it.
I doubt that.


I do find it interesting that you are getting the sum total of your knowledge from a single author.
Except that I'm not. Ergo, you're lying.

Hint: quoting from one source does not mean that it's the only source. Only someone wanting to create a strawman would think that it does. Are you wanting to create a strawman?



He quotes (and is) one of the top minds in the field. There. Is. No. Dispute. Period.
"This one guy who is a leader in his field wrote a book and he quotes other guys in his field who agree with him. Therefore, there can't possibly be any dispute."
Nice strawman. Got anything better?

Is there a dispute over evolution just because there are creationists? Is there a dispute about the earth being oblate spheroid just because there are flat-earthers? NO! Similarly....



Not in the least, since you have stated your opinions.
Really? What, pray tell, are they then?
That it's arrogant to come to any conclusion about anything. That any definition you disagree with has "strapped on" items. Things like that.



I'm not.
By making the statement, "It is logically impossible for anything to exist outside the universe,"
...I am making a conclusion based on the utter lack of ontology for "outside the universe".

Mayhaps you don't understand the concept of "conclusion".



Yes, you have. You're really fond of lying, aren't you?
Point out that quote or anything remotely resembling it in anything I have said.
I have been.



How do you know that? What is your ontological basis for making that claim?
The definition of being is a given.
Within the universe. What about apart from the universe?


The word has been defined. It's meaning doesn't change because of location.
It can change because of the context. The universe is the context for the word "being". Tell me--what is the context for "being" apart from the universe?

Hint: you have no basis to make your claim. You haven't any ontological framework.



Yes.
How very illogical of you! The sum total of all of existence revolves around human beings?
What a wonderful strawman! Do you think you could lie with a little bit more gusto next time?



Yes, you have. You've claimed that existence apart from the universe is the same as inside. But how is it that you know that?
Because existence is defined.
Within the universe.


Being is defined.
Within the universe.


Therefore, if there is existence outside the universe, it is defined in the same way as inside.
How do you know that? Don't beg the damned question.



IOW: you're claiming that I'm wrong. Thanks for trying to be wishy-washy.
There is a huge logical difference between pointing out that you might be wrong
You're not doing that. You're saying that I am wrong.



No, I do not need to.
You keep stating this. Are you ever going to back it up?
Already have.



Yes, you did.
Point to anywhere I ever stated that we can't make decisions.
Every time you called me arrogant or wrong for making a decision.



That's a conclusion, not a claim.
It is a possible conclusion that you are claiming to be true.
It's a conclusion that logically follows from the premises.

And I have supported my claims.



I've looked, and have seen no one saying that gravity is fully understood or that its cause is 100% proven.
Every single time I or any one else has brought up the fact that they are not, we have been yelled at and told that, "Gravity is something we can prove! We know for a fact that it depends on X!"
No, you have not, liar. You're the moron saying that others are saying that gravity is fully understood, yet the people who are saying that we know that gravity is the warpage of spacetime around matter are not saying that we know the exact transmission method, which would mean that we fully understand it.

Ergo, you're strawmanning.

Every time you claim I'm arrogant for thinking that there's nothing apart from the universe.

Game. Set. Match.

I have never made any such claim and I challenge you to show me any time I have done so. In fact, I have said the exact opposite more than once, that to think that there is nothing apart from the universe is not arrogant at all. The arrogance lies in claiming that you know with absolute certainty that there is nothing apart from the universe, or claiming that it is impossible for there to be anything apart from the universe.

Surely you can see the difference between, "I think X," and "There is no possible way it could be anything other than X. I know this with absolute and complete certainty."

Oh yes it is, for you are taking a stance, and you can't take a stance! That's arrogant! How dare you take a stance! What--do you think that you have even one millionth of the knowledge in the universe? How dare you make a decision!

Again, just giving you some of your medicine.

Again, a completely silly strawman. I have said nothing about taking a stance. I have said that you can't claim absolute certainty. Again, there is a huge difference between the two.

And proved it.

We weren't trying to prove speciation any more than we are trying to prove a meter. Both are metrics of measurement. What we are trying to do when we measure speciation is test the theory of evolution. Thus far, we have found no evidence that contradicts it, so it stands as a valid theory.

I doubt that.

You can doubt it all you want. Doesn't make it any less true.

Except that I'm not. Ergo, you're lying.

Thus far, your entire argument has been, "But Briane Greene says...." If you have read more literature - actual literature please, not a book, on the subject, by all means provide it.

Is there a dispute over evolution just because there are creationists?

No, but there is quite a bit of dispute over the exact processes of evolution. There is quite a bit of dispute over where certain species fit into the process.

Creationists are not scientists, my dear, so what they say has nothing to do with scientific dispute. However, among biologists, there are challenges all the time. Generally, there are no challenges to what one might consider the basics - which is all one gets (and generally not even that) in a high school biology course. However, there are quite a few challenges to the specifics - and that is how science progresses.

Is there a dispute about the earth being oblate spheroid just because there are flat-earthers? NO! Similarly....

Again with your strawmen. When I am talking about dispute, I am not talking about scientists v. non-scientists. That is irrelevant. I am talking about disputes among scientists.

In the time, Big Bang, etc. field I am talking about the ongoing discussion of whether time is discrete or continuous, whether matter is discrete or continuous. I am talking about the ongoing discussion as to whether the Big Bang is an isolated event or one that occurs in a cycle, with the Universe expanding and contracting over and over again. These are things that are discussed and hypothesized by some of the top scientists in the world. At this point, we can't really make any type of empirical measurements to test them, so they remain hypotheses.

That it's arrogant to come to any conclusion about anything.

That's certainly not any opinion of mine, considering that I come to conclusions all the time.

That any definition you disagree with has "strapped on" items.

If you strap on an item that is clearly not in the definition, that isn't an opinion - it is a demonstrable fact.

Find me a credible source with a definition of existence that limits it to within the universe.

...I am making a conclusion based on the utter lack of ontology for "outside the universe".

Making a conclusion that is open to other evidence and making an absolute statement are two very different things.

Mayhaps you don't understand the concept of "conclusion".

Maybe you don't understand the difference between an absolute statement and one that is actually a conclusion based on evidence - and open to further evidence.

I have been.

No, you really haven't. As I have very clearly pointed out, all you have been doing is creating strawmen and illogically equating things that are not equal. When you don't like the fact that they aren't equal, you complain that I am wishy washy. Of course, that's a bit like saying, "You don't think 2=3!?!?!?! You're wishy washy!"

Within the universe. What about apart from the universe?

Where in the definition is the restriction to "within the universe"? Again, you are very clearly imposing a restriction that does not exist within the actual definition.

It can change because of the context. The universe is the context for the word "being".

...Personal opinion stated as fact. There is nothing inherent in the definition that makes the context "within the universe."

What a wonderful strawman! Do you think you could lie with a little bit more gusto next time?

That wasn't a strawman at all. I asked if our existence within the universe meant that everything that exists must be in the universe. You said yes. That means, for those of you following along at home, that the definition of existence revolves around us.

Within the universe.

Within the universe.

Provide some sort of reasoning for this or stop saying it. Find me a definition for either existence or being (from a credible source) that is, in and of itself, restricted to within the universe.

How do you know that? Don't beg the damned question.

Because I know the definition of the word. If something doesn't meet the definition, then another word is used. That's how language works.

You're not doing that. You're saying that I am wrong.

Really? Find me any place that I said, "There is something that exists outside the universe and I know this to be true." Find me any place that I said, "There is a god or gods and I know this to be true."

I haven't said either of these things. I have said that you must accept the possibility that you might be wrong, which is a very, very different thing from saying that you are wrong. I might beleive that there is nothing outside the universe and that there are no gods at all. You wouldn't know, because I haven't told you what I believe about it. The difference is that I am willing to admit that I am not infallible.

Every time you called me arrogant or wrong for making a decision.

Since that has never happened, I guess you have no backing then. Sorry.

Calling you arrogant for claiming your opinion as absolute fact is very, very different from calling you arrogant or wrong for making a decision.

It's a conclusion that logically follows from the premises.

From your premises, perhaps, but that doesn't make it absolute truth. Other logical conclusions can be made. Other premises can be used. Logic is reliant upon the axioms chosen at the outset. In most cases, assumptions have to be made along the way as well. Thus, your particular axioms and assumptions have led you to this conclusion. That doesn't make it absolute fact, as both your axioms and assumptions could possibly be wrong.

And I have supported my claims.

Not that I have seen, although you have seemed to back off the, "IT IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE!" line to a more reasonable (and supportable) "I think it is X."

No, you have not, liar. You're the moron saying that others are saying that gravity is fully understood, yet the people who are saying that we know that gravity is the warpage of spacetime around matter are not saying that we know the exact transmission method, which would mean that we fully understand it.

To claim that anything is 100% proven, you must fully understand it. I have seen quite a few claims on that.

When I, and Bruarong, have stated that gravity is not fully understood, that we don't know exactly what it is or how it arises, we have been yelled down - mostly by Brenchley, and some from you.

If you tell me that you know something with 100% certainty, you are telling me that you understand it fully, and know every siingle variable that could possibly in any conceivable way affect it with 100% certainty.

I am a christian but I believe they should just teach both (as theory not fact). I dont see what is so contriversial if it is taught as theory. If it is such a big deal though why dont they just not teach either?

I am a christian but I believe they should just teach both (as theory not fact). I dont see what is so contriversial if it is taught as theory. If it is such a big deal though why dont they just not teach either?

Because there is a huge difference between theory (standard usage) and scientific theory. Evolution has been tested time and time again, has a falsifiable thesis, and is one of the most proven facts in science today. Intelligent design is not falsifiable, has virtually no scientific backing, and all around proves useless even as a theory simply because it tends to write things off as 'designed' rather than test how things became the way they are.

Simply put, evolution should be taught in science classes, not both. The only place ID belongs in is a philosophy or religion course.

Every time you claim I'm arrogant for thinking that there's nothing apart from the universe.

Game. Set. Match.
I have never made any such claim
Yes, you have.



Oh yes it is, for you are taking a stance, and you can't take a stance! That's arrogant! How dare you take a stance! What--do you think that you have even one millionth of the knowledge in the universe? How dare you make a decision!

Again, just giving you some of your medicine.
Again, a completely silly strawman.
Again, it's completely accurate as to your stance.



And proved it.
We weren't trying to prove speciation any more than we are trying to prove a meter.
But we did.



Except that I'm not. Ergo, you're lying.
Thus far, your entire argument has been, "But Briane Greene says...."
No, it has not.


If you have read more literature - actual literature please, not a book, on the subject, by all means provide it.
Brian Greene's books aren't actual literature? You mean he doesn't have all the degrees that he does? He has done no research?

I think he'd like to know of your libel.



Is there a dispute over evolution just because there are creationists? No, but there is quite a bit of dispute over the exact processes of evolution.
Yes, but not about evolution itself.


Creationists are not scientists,
Irrelevant, my dear.



Is there a dispute about the earth being oblate spheroid just because there are flat-earthers? NO! Similarly....
Again with your strawmen.
Again with your lies.




That it's arrogant to come to any conclusion about anything.
That's certainly not any opinion of mine, considering that I come to conclusions all the time.
It is an opinion of yours, as you've stated it here, and thus you are a hypocrite for coming to conclusions.



That any definition you disagree with has "strapped on" items.
If you strap on an item that is clearly not in the definition, that isn't an opinion - it is a demonstrable fact.
And no one but you has done that.


Find me a credible source with a definition of existence that limits it to within the universe.
Define for me existence "apart from the universe". No, you can't say that it's the same as within the universe, for you have no ontological framework to make that case. You claim that you can't have any measurements "apart from the universe", so to say that "existence" has the same definition apart from the universe as within the universe is to contradict yourself. It is to say that you can measure the immeasurable!

Game. Set. Match.



...I am making a conclusion based on the utter lack of ontology for "outside the universe".
Making a conclusion that is open to other evidence and making an absolute statement are two very different things.
You yourself said that "outside the universe" is an immeasurable condition, and as such, there can be no evidence for it. So to be open to something that cannot exist is damned foolish, wouldn't you agree? I hope you would, otherwise you'd be contradicting yourself. Wouldn't want that, would you?



Mayhaps you don't understand the concept of "conclusion".
Maybe you don't understand the difference between an absolute statement and one that is actually a conclusion based on evidence - and open to further evidence.
I do. Maybe you don't understand your own position, as I showed above.



I have been.
No, you really haven't.
Yes, I really have. As I've clearly pointed out, all you've been doing is creating strawmen, lying, and being wishy-washy.



Within the universe. What about apart from the universe?
Where in the definition is the restriction to "within the universe"?
Define for me "being" apart from the universe.


Again, you are very clearly imposing a restriction that does not exist within the actual definition.
But it does.

You know of something called an "unstated premise", right?

Isn't our entire explanatory framework built upon the universe? Aren't our words tied to the universe? If you step apart from the universe--apart from the framework--how do you get any meaning? Don't words have to have referents? Where are the referents in "apart from the universe"?


When one asks for the cause of something, whether it be an entity or event, one is asking for the entity or action of an entity (prior event) that caused it. Causal explanation is possible only within the context of existence. Nathaniel Branden writes:

"Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist. ... All actions presuppose the existence of entities—and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. ... Causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality. ... Existence—not “God”—is the First Cause.[220]"

This passage demonstrates that the causal argument drops the epistemological context that gives meaning to the concept of causality. “What caused the universe?” is an absurd question, because before something can act as a cause, it must first exist—i.e., it must first be part of the universe. The universe sets the foundation for causal explanation and cannot itself require a causal explanation.

The primacy of existence is illustrated in science by the principle that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. J. S. Mill hinted at the above objection to the causal argument when he stated that, “As a fact of experience ... causation cannot legitimately be extended to the material universe itself, but only to its changeable phenomena. ...”[221] Chapman Cohen, a noted English atheist, commented that discussing causality outside the context of the universe “is like discussing a bird’s flight in the absence of an atmosphere.”[222]

The universe, then, has always existed and always will exist. Some theists find this difficult to accept, and they argue that god makes the universe easier to understand. Yet, while the theist complains of difficulty accepting the notion of an eternally existing universe, consider his alternative. We must conceive of a supernatural, unknowable, eternally existing being, and, moreover, we must conceive of this being creating matter from the void of non-existence. It is strange that those who object to the idea of eternal matter display little difficulty in accepting the creation of something out of nothing. While the idea of an eternal universe may be initially difficult for some people to assimilate, the theist’s alternative is an exercise in fantasy.

...

Consider the nature of an explanation. An explanation builds a conceptual bridge from the known to the unknown, linking the unexplained to the context of one’s knowledge. A new idea must be integrated within one’s conceptual hierarchy in order to qualify as knowledge. An idea that cannot be so integrated exists in a conceptual vacuum; it cannot be comprehended because one lacks the conceptual framework necessary for comprehension.

The process of explanation consists essentially of integrating a new idea or concept within the context of one’s present knowledge. Because men differ with regard to their context and scope of knowledge, an explanation is relative to the person seeking it. What is a satisfactory explanation for one man may not be satisfactory for another. For example, we simplify our language when explaining something to a child in order to compensate for his limited sphere of knowledge. Also, a scientist may understand an explanation that explains nothing to a layman who lacks the required technical background. An explanation must provide understanding, and one cannot understand something that lies beyond one’s conceptual frame of reference.

While the particulars of knowledge differ among men, all men gain knowledge within one broad context: the context of the natural, knowable universe. Removed from this framework, knowledge is impossible and explanation is unintelligible.

Recall that the supernatural cannot be grasped by man’s consciousness. When the theist posits a supernatural being, he is not merely positing the presently unknown that may be grasped with a greater degree of knowledge. The theist is positing the unknowable, that which is beyond man’s comprehension, that which man will never be able to understand regardless of his degree of knowledge. Since the supernatural must remain forever outside the context of man’s knowledge, a “supernatural explanation” is a contradiction in terms. One cannot explain the unknown with reference to the unknowable.

The theist initially constructs a gap between the universe and man’s knowledge by claiming that the universe requires an explanation. Then, by stipulating that this explanation cannot be given in terms of natural (i.e., knowable) phenomena, he proclaims that this gap can never be bridged, that any attempt to account for the universe within the context of man’s knowledge is doomed to failure. Therefore, he argues, we must turn to the supernatural and the unknowable.

The supernatural, however, does not build a conceptual bridge from the unknown to the known; it sabotages not only the bridge, but the very possibility of ever constructing such a bridge. According to the theist, we can never link that which requires an explanation (the universe or some natural phenomenon) to the context of knowledge available to man. To say that god is responsible for the universe is to say that the explanation of the universe is unknowable to man—or, in other words, that no explanation is possible. To posit the supernatural explains nothing; it merely asserts the futility of explanation.

Here endeth the lesson.


It can change because of the context. The universe is the context for the word "being".
...Personal opinion stated as fact.
Nope; fact stated as fact.


There is nothing inherent in the definition that makes the context "within the universe.
Then show me what it means as apart from the universe! Stop your whining and crying about what I'm supposedly doing, get off your intellectually lazy ass, and get to showing me wrong! You're the one who says there's nothing inherent in the definition to make the context within the universe, so your MUST have a definition as apart from the universe, or else you're just spouting YOUR personal opinion as fact, thus making you a hypocrite!



What a wonderful strawman! Do you think you could lie with a little bit more gusto next time?
That wasn't a strawman at all.
It was.


I asked if our existence within the universe meant that everything that exists must be in the universe. You said yes. That means, for those of you following along at home, that the definition of existence revolves around us.
Non sequitur.



Within the universe.

Within the universe.
Provide some sort of reasoning for this or stop saying it.
Provide me a definition of existence and being as apart from the unverse, or stop your damned whining! That's enough of your crap. Either show me the definitions apart from the universe, or STFU. That's it.



How do you know that? Don't beg the damned question.
Because I know the definition of the word.
No, you don't.

So how do you know it?



You're not doing that. You're saying that I am wrong.
Really?
Yes.


Find me any place that I said, "There is something that exists outside the universe and I know this to be true."
You don't have to say that for you to say that I'm wrong, dear. What you're saying to say that I'm wrong is "you're tying the definition to within the universe, and there's no reason for you to do that".

So, dear, care to lie to me again? I dare you to do it.



Every time you called me arrogant or wrong for making a decision.
Since that has never happened,
It has.



It's a conclusion that logically follows from the premises.
From your premises, perhaps, but that doesn't make it absolute truth. Other logical conclusions can be made.
No; only illogical ones.


Other premises can be used. Logic is reliant upon the axioms chosen at the outset.
Gonna play logic fast-and-loose, huh? Get rid of identity, perhaps? What about non-contradiction--wanna do away with that one?



And I have supported my claims.
Not that I have seen,
Oh, you have seen it.

And yes, existence apart from the universe is impossible.



No, you have not, liar. You're the moron saying that others are saying that gravity is fully understood, yet the people who are saying that we know that gravity is the warpage of spacetime around matter are not saying that we know the exact transmission method, which would mean that we fully understand it.
To claim that anything is 100% proven,
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/education/TGuide_Part2.pdf


you must fully understand it.
And we fully understand that spacetime is curved, just as we stated. Y'see, it was proven back in 1919. Perhaps you've just not heard about it.


When I, and Bruarong, have stated that gravity is not fully understood, that we don't know exactly what it is or how it arises, we have been yelled down - mostly by Brenchley, and some from you.
No, you have been chastized because you're setting up strawmen. You're claiming that we're claiming we know precisely everything about gravity, and yet we are not claiming that. Ergo, you're strawmanning.

You know, it is really stupid to use one post to debate with two different people.



<snip replies not aimed at me>



Really? So we discovered that 2+2 =4 in exactly the same way we discovered the Americas?

No, the Americas were an accidental find. 2+2=4 was a major discovery.

Of course not.

Certain parts of math are based off of observations - calculus for example. However, much of it is arbitrarily assigned by human beings. We decided which digits represent which numbers. We decided that addition would mean finding the sum of two numbers. We decided that mathematics would be bound by a certain logic that we think matches the real world.

Theorems and properties of mathematics are discovered, but the underlying basis was created by human beings. In fact, quite a bit of time has been spent demonstrating that you cannot prove an axiom to be true - you simply must accept it as such. This is why mathematics is so very dependent upon the assumptions made at the outset.

What total rubbish. Mathmatics is the language of the universe. 2 + 2 = 4, II + II = IV, 0010 + 0010 = 0100 it works whatever the symbols. If we ever get to communicate with extraterrestrials it will be with maths because that is the language any intelligent race will understand. Prime numbers are prime regardless of the number base you use, maths work for the simple reason that they are the same to everyone.

Considering it proven and actually proving it are two different things. In the first case, we admit that it might not be true, but since we have so much evidence to back it up and it has held thus, far, we will assume it to be true. This is the basis of scientific theory.

In the second, we say, "This is 100% correct and nothing will ever change my mind on that." To prove something means to have 100% certainty, not 99.9999999999999%.

There are a number of facts which form the backbone to the vast majority of moden physics. They support each other, change one and the whole lot fall apart. For instance, change the value of the speed of light and the famous E=MC^2 changes and that leads to changes in other key constants or equations. Now you can't play with things like that it just doesn't work. These facts are self supporting and as such become self proving.

This is like saying, "A musician would not get involved in something that is not musical."

In other words, it is an idiotic statement.

It is idiotic to change the subject. We are talking about science and religion.

Because, logically, science can only be used in situation in which the scientific method can apply. It can only be used in situations for which we can make empirical measurements. I find myself occasionally interested in something outside the technical. I find myself interested in moral questions and ethics (the realm of some philosophy), religious questions (the realm of theology), finances (the realm of economics), music (which incorporates mathematics and physics, but the experience of it is really neither), etc. I'm sorry if I don't have a psychotic one-track mind.

Science provides the answers for adults - religion is for the simple minded.

Science is absolutely a tool. It is a logical process used to look at the world.

Science can be a tool, but it is more than that. Tools do not answer questions - science does.

And, if you look at its history even for two seconds, you would know that science is a form of philosophy. It is much more restricted than many of areas of philosophy, being restricted to the scientific method itself - to logic and to empiricism, but it is philosophy. Theology is another form of philosophy, albeit with different restrictions. To claim that it is insulting to compare the two is like claiming that it is insulting to compare the process of smelting to the process of annealing.

Again, keep to the subject. You will lose if you keep trying to change the subject. We are talking about science -v- religion. Religion nolonger has a place in the future of man, we have outgrown the need for fairy stories.

Incorrect. A universal law is just that - universal. It applies to everything. Of course, a law (as you can see in any adequate description of the scientific method) is a theory that has so much support that we decide to call it a law. People tend to shy away from that a bit now.

Actually, Newton doesn't work, not completely. It is, as I said, a good enough approximation, much like ignoring gravity in a problem might be, or assuming that a reaction goes to completiong might be. In using Newton's laws, someone is making an assumption that something doesn't affect their calculations. It actually does, but in some cases, the error is so small compared to the answer that it doesn't matter.

If we use relativity, however, we will get a more accurate answer, even in those situations where we normally use Newton. Thus, relativity supercedes Newton, as it can be used in all cases thus found, not just a subset of cases in which is is "good enough for government work", as it were.[quote]

Newton's laws on gravity got us to the moon, got probes to Mars and way beyond. Not bad for someone who died in 1727.


[quote]Not in the least. Claiming that something is proven 100% means that no amount of evidence will ever sway you to believe that it was incorrect. It wouldn't matter how much evidence was collected, you couldn't back out of it, as it was already proven 100% correct. Admitting, as science does, that there is uncertainty there - that it may seem to be proven correct, but is could still be disproven in the future - encourages you to keep questioning, keep experimenting, and keep discovering.

I refer you to my past answers. The uncertainty only comes where we want it to be.

Then the claim that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant would be disproven - exactly what I have been saying. If we say, we have proven with 100% certainity that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, then we would not be able to deal with any measurement that shows otherwise.

But no measurement is going to show otherwise, C is a known constant.

We would have to throw out any measurement that seemed otherwise as some sort of error, since we would be saying that we have already proven this with 100% certainty.

Exactly correct.

However, if we say, "We're pretty damn sure that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, and because we are so sure of it, we will base our current theories upon this idea, but like all things in science, that is open to being disproven," then, should such a measurement ever be made, science would progress. We would have to discover what had changed the speed - and why. We would determine the rules that actually did govern the speed. And so on....

We would stand by some fundamentalist claim that it was "100% proven."

This is the way that science works.

If you do not have things that are 100% proven it is very difficult to make sense of a lot of other things. When a large number of things support each other in such essential ways, so essential the the very fabric of physics depends on them, then you have to take them as read.

Change one of the key factors and it could just be acceptable that we were wrong on that one, all the other tests were errors. However, if you change it and everything else falls apart then logic tells us we were right first time and it is our latest test that is wrong.


Really? So science isn't bound by the scientific method - a set of logical restrictions?

Science is bounded by the universe we live in.

I am a christian but I believe they should just teach both (as theory not fact). I dont see what is so contriversial if it is taught as theory. If it is such a big deal though why dont they just not teach either?

A scientific Theory is based on facts.

Religion is based on fairy stories.

Which would you rather your kids were taught?

Yes, you have.

Then point out a single quote. Otherwise, stop being silly.

Again, it's completely accurate as to your stance.

You know, a rational person would know that I know my stance better than you do. I have told you what my stance is, your strawmen and idiotic statements notwithstanding.

But we did.

We proved a meter?

No, it has not.

Then provide something else.

Brian Greene's books aren't actual literature? You mean he doesn't have all the degrees that he does? He has done no research? [/quot]

Books != scientific literature. Scientific literature is found in peer-reviewed journals.

[quote]Yes, but not about evolution itself.

No, for the vast majority, the basics of evolution are accepted as theory. They are still, as all of science is, open to falsification. If they weren't - that would mean that they aren't testable and therefore aren't science at all.

Irrelevant, my dear.

When discussing dispute among the scientific community, how exactly is the standing of a disputer as either being part of that community or not irrelevant?

If I said that my family was disputing something, and then included your opinion as part of it, would it be irrelevant that you are not part of my family?

It is an opinion of yours, as you've stated it here, and thus you are a hypocrite for coming to conclusions.

Find me a single quote where I made any such statement. If you can't find a statement I made in which I said, "You cannot come to conclusions," then you are lying, plain and simple.

And no one but you has done that.

So you're not the one claiming that the definition of existence is restricted to the universe when it doesn't say that within the defintion?

Define for me existence "apart from the universe". No, you can't say that it's the same as within the universe, for you have no ontological framework to make that case.

The definition of a word is the definition of a word. If existence outside the universe (should there be any) is not the same as existence inside the universe, then it isn't existence at all - it is something else. This isn't a hard concept.

You claim that you can't have any measurements "apart from the universe", so to say that "existence" has the same definition apart from the universe as within the universe is to contradict yourself. It is to say that you can measure the immeasurable!

There is nothing in the definition of existence that restricts it to that which is measurable.

You yourself said that "outside the universe" is an immeasurable condition, and as such, there can be no evidence for it.

No, I didn't. I said there can be no empirical evidence. If there is something outside the universe, and it chooses to interact with some of those within it - that is evidence to them. It simply might not be empirical evidence.

If I see something, but I am alone and no one else sees it, I have the evidence to possibly believe I have seen it. I can't measure it with instruments if I can't repeat the occurrence, and everyone else might disbelieve me, as I cannot produce empirical evidence. That doesn't make my sight any less of evidence to me.

So to be open to something that cannot exist is damned foolish, wouldn't you agree?

If you could absolutely prove that a given object cannot exist, it would be foolish to be open to its existence. You can start on that right now....


But it does.

You know of something called an "unstated premise", right?

Isn't our entire explanatory framework built upon the universe? Aren't our words tied to the universe? If you step apart from the universe--apart from the framework--how do you get any meaning? Don't words have to have referents? Where are the referents in "apart from the universe"?

No, you don't.

I have posted the definitions here.

So how do you know it?

The same way you know the definition of any word. It comes out of usage - and the usage is the definition. We have handy-dandy little books called dictionaries that pull all of the definitions together - so we can look them up and see what someone means when they use a word, unless, of course, they attach extra connotations or restrictions to it, in which case they need to define the word solely in the context in which they will use it.

You don't have to say that for you to say that I'm wrong, dear. What you're saying to say that I'm wrong is "you're tying the definition to within the universe, and there's no reason for you to do that".

Ah, so what you are actually upset about is me pointing out a dictionary definition for a word and how your personal definition is not the same. Gotcha. You weren't talking about what we are actually debating.

Gonna play logic fast-and-loose, huh? Get rid of identity, perhaps? What about non-contradiction--wanna do away with that one?

No, those are rules of logic, not axioms or assumptions. You really need to study up on logic.

And yes, existence apart from the universe is impossible.

Provide proof of this claim.

And we fully understand that spacetime is curved, just as we stated. Y'see, it was proven back in 1919. Perhaps you've just not heard about it.

No, that hypothesis gained support in 1919. At this point, it has so much support that it is considered a theory. Tomorrow, we might make a measurement that contradicts the theory, in which case the theory will be altered or thrown out.

You know, it is really stupid to use one post to debate with two different people.

You are aware that an internet forum is not a one-on-one debate? It is rather annoying to get multiple posts back to back from the same person. If you don't like the way I post on an internet forum - so that it is convenient for everyone and not just one person - then please, refrain from participating in a conversation with me.



There are a number of facts which form the backbone to the vast majority of moden physics. They support each other, change one and the whole lot fall apart. For instance, change the value of the speed of light and the famous E=MC^2 changes and that leads to changes in other key constants or equations. Now you can't play with things like that it just doesn't work. These facts are self supporting and as such become self proving.

Hardly. The speed of light is based upon measurement. Every time we get a more accurate method of measurement, the speed of light is altered. Nothing has fallen apart yet.

Meanwhile, you are making the same mistake BAWWA made, trying to equate a measurement to the entire scientific process. There is no "theory that the speed of light is X." There is a theory that E=mc^2, one that has held up to quite a bit of testing and for which we have found no instance in which it doesn't work.


It is idiotic to change the subject. We are talking about science and religion.

An analogy is not changing the subject. Suggesting that a scientist should do nothing more than science is exactly liike suggesting that a musician should never concern himself with anything outside of music, that a theologian should never concern herslef with anything outside of religion, that a statistician should never concern himself with anything outside of statistics.

Being a scientist is not the sum total of what I am. Even in my professional life - I am not only a scientist, but also an engineer. In my work, I must examine ethical concerns - which come from philosophy. I must worry about financial concerns - and thus be concerned with economics. You made a statement that a good scientist would never concern himself with any of these things, but would instead never concern himself with anything outside of science.

Science can be a tool, but it is more than that. Tools do not answer questions - science does.

I think we are having a semantics issue. As far as I am concerned, tools absolutely can answer questions. Math is a tool that I use to answer questions, as is science, as is engineering. The answer to the question is the goal - science is the tool used to get to it.


I refer you to my past answers. The uncertainty only comes where we want it to be.


....which is a very silly statement. There is uncertainty in every measurement we make - not because we want it to be, but because it is there. There is uncertainty in the results of every experiment - which is why we must repeat them - not because we want it to be, but because it is there. And there is uncertainty, albeit often known, in many of the equations we use on a daily basis. We use them, not because we think they are completely accurate, but because they are more convenient for use than taking all issues into account.

One of my old professors liked to call it, "Creative laziness."

Exactly correct.

....So you approve of the cessation of science? If we had thought that the indivisibility of atoms was proven with 100% certainty, then the measurements that disproved that idea would have been ignored. The gold foil tests? Thrown out the window. Obviously, since it was proven with 100% certainty that the atom was the smallest division of matter, we couldn't possibly get results that suggested otherwise!

Of course, we did. And since we were open to the idea that all theories are falsifiable, the idea that atoms are indivisible was thrown out and we did more experiments and discovered electrons, protons, and neutrons. Now, we had new indivisible units!

But then, since we were open to the idea that these might not actually be the smallest units, we found evidence for even smaller units...

Who knows what we might find evidence for next?

Stating that you will automatically throw out any measurement that disagrees with the currently held consensus is not science - it is far from it - it is fundamentalism.

If you do not have things that are 100% proven it is very difficult to make sense of a lot of other things. When a large number of things support each other in such essential ways, so essential the the very fabric of physics depends on them, then you have to take them as read.

Change one of the key factors and it could just be acceptable that we were wrong on that one, all the other tests were errors. However, if you change it and everything else falls apart then logic tells us we were right first time and it is our latest test that is wrong.

The fact that you other measurements might be wrong if one thing changes is completely irrelevant. This is exactly like saying, "If there are particles smaller than the atom, we have to throw out our model of matter and the atom. Therefore, I'm not going to believe any of the evidence for smaller particles."

We assume that those things with the most support are true because they have the most support - if that changes, we must change with it. Otherwise, we are not talking about science - we are talking about religious fundamentalism with the name science tacked on.


Science is bounded by the universe we live in.

That is certainly a logical conclusion of the scientific process. In fact, it is one of the main points I have been making in this debate. Thank you.

Yes, you have.
Then point out a single quote.
I have.



Again, it's completely accurate as to your stance.
You know, a rational person would know that I know my stance better than you do.
I'm going by your own words. If you want to lie about your stance--fine.



But we did.
We proved a meter?
Speciation.




Brian Greene's books aren't actual literature? You mean he doesn't have all the degrees that he does? He has done no research?
Books != scientific literature. Scientific literature is found in peer-reviewed journals.
So a biology textbook isn't scientific literature?

You're daft!



Yes, but not about evolution itself.
No, for the vast majority, the basics of evolution are accepted as theory.
And fact.

Are you sure you want to dispute me on this, 'cuz I'll just whip out the talkorigins.org faq on evolution being both a fact and theory and slap you with it. Your choice.



Irrelevant, my dear.
When discussing dispute among the scientific community, how exactly is the standing of a disputer as either being part of that community or not irrelevant?
As there's no dispute in the field of cosmology, then the dispute must be from outside the field, n'est-ce pas?



It is an opinion of yours, as you've stated it here, and thus you are a hypocrite for coming to conclusions.
Find me a single quote where I made any such statement.
Every time you said I was arrogant for my stance.



And no one but you has done that.
So you're not the one claiming that the definition of existence is restricted to the universe when it doesn't say that within the defintion?
But the definition does say that.

Unless, of course, you want to provide me the definition of existence as apart from the universe. I keep asking--you keep running. Makes me think you're just trolling.



Define for me existence "apart from the universe". No, you can't say that it's the same as within the universe, for you have no ontological framework to make that case.
The definition of a word is the definition of a word.
Within the universe.


If existence outside the universe (should there be any) is not the same as existence inside the universe, then it isn't existence at all - it is something else. This isn't a hard concept.
So you should be able to define it for me, shouldn't you? This isn't a hard concept.



You claim that you can't have any measurements "apart from the universe", so to say that "existence" has the same definition apart from the universe as within the universe is to contradict yourself. It is to say that you can measure the immeasurable!
There is nothing in the definition of existence that restricts it to that which is measurable.
Yes there is, troll.



You yourself said that "outside the universe" is an immeasurable condition, and as such, there can be no evidence for it.
No, I didn't.
Yes you did, liar.

[snip lies]



So to be open to something that cannot exist is damned foolish, wouldn't you agree?
If you could absolutely prove that a given object cannot exist, it would be foolish to be open to its existence. You can start on that right now....
Already done. You can stop lying right now.


But it does.

You know of something called an "unstated premise", right?

Isn't our entire explanatory framework built upon the universe? Aren't our words tied to the universe? If you step apart from the universe--apart from the framework--how do you get any meaning? Don't words have to have referents? Where are the referents in "apart from the universe"?
Yes---where are the referents in "apart from the universe"? Please tell me. Enlighten every single person on the planet, because you will be the first person in the history of the universe to be able to tell us.

I note that you don't have anything to say about the quote from George Smith. How shall I take that?



No, you don't.
I have posted the definitions here.
Yet you don't understand them.



So how do you know it?
The same way you know the definition of any word.
Not when the context is not of the universe.

Unless, of course, you just want to steal the concept. Want to do that? That's a fallacy, y'know.



You don't have to say that for you to say that I'm wrong, dear. What you're saying to say that I'm wrong is "you're tying the definition to within the universe, and there's no reason for you to do that".
Ah, so what you are actually upset about is me pointing out a dictionary definition for a word
No, I'm not upset at you at all. You're merely a hypocrite and a liar, and I pity you.

You aren't actually talking about what we're debating, anyway. You're just trying to make up definitions.



Gonna play logic fast-and-loose, huh? Get rid of identity, perhaps? What about non-contradiction--wanna do away with that one?
No, those are rules of logic, not axioms
Yes, they axioms as well. You really need to study up on logic. And the definition of axiom, since you love the dictionary so much.

Main Entry: ax·i·om
Pronunciation: 'ak-sE-&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin axioma, from Greek axiOma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive -- more at AGENT
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

Just thought that might help you.

And show me where a law of logic cannot also be an axiom. Are you trying to "strap on" things to the definition? I wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite.



And yes, existence apart from the universe is impossible.
Provide proof of this claim.
Already did.



And we fully understand that spacetime is curved, just as we stated. Y'see, it was proven back in 1919. Perhaps you've just not heard about it.
No, that hypothesis gained support in 1919.
No, it was demonstrated in 1919. i.e. proven.

I have.

Really? You have pointed out an actual quote where I have said any of these things instead of inferring them from other statements? You must be living in another universe my dear.

I'm going by your own words. If you want to lie about your stance--fine.

No, you are going by strawmen constructed by twisting my words. There is a rather large difference.

So a biology textbook isn't scientific literature?

Not really. It doesn't have enough detail to be useful and is generally full of outdated information. A biology textbook is scientific literature in much the same way that a new article about what Allen Greenspan says is economic literature. That is, it isn't.

And fact.

That all depends on how you define fact. If you define it as "100% proven", no scientist worth the money spent on her education would claim that evolution is a fact. If by fact you mean, accepted principal backed in an incredible amount of evidence, then you can call a scientific theory "fact".

As there's no dispute in the field of cosmology, then the dispute must be from outside the field, n'est-ce pas?

Anyone who reads articles on cosmology is aware that there is dispute. I have pointed out what several of those disputes are. You have yet to answer to them.

Every time you said I was arrogant for my stance.

I never said you were arrogant for your stance. You are arrogant for claiming infallibility by suggesting that your stance is an absolute fact.

But the definition does say that.

Show me a definition that clearly states, "This definition only applies within the universe." Otherwise, you have your own speculation, not actual fact.

So you should be able to define it for me, shouldn't you? This isn't a hard concept.

I have defined it, over and over and over again. Would you like me to buy you a dictionary?

Yes there is, troll.

Then feel free to point it out. And if anyone is trolling here, it is you, with your constant insults and accusations like the following:

Yes you did, liar.

I'm fairly certain that calling someone a liar over and over again, especially when it can be objectively shown that they aren't lying at all, would be considered trolling and flamebaiting. If you can't actually debate your "points", then don't - insults and accusations will get you nowhere.

Yes---where are the referents in "apart from the universe"? Please tell me. Enlighten every single person on the planet, because you will be the first person in the history of the universe to be able to tell us.

I don't claim to know what does and does not exist apart from the universe, although I do have my beliefs. You are the one making a positive statement here, not I.

I note that you don't have anything to say about the quote from George Smith. How shall I take that?

I should answer to atheist propoganda as if it is the end-all-be-all of truth?

If I were to post a quote from the pope in this discussion, would you consider it authoritative?

Yet you don't understand them.

Ah, but I do. I simply don't tack on unnecessary restrictions and connotations. I go purely by the definition.

Not when the context is not of the universe.

The word and the context are both defined by the users - human beings. If the context was "only within the universe," then that would be a part of the definition. As it is, the words existence and being are both used to describe possibilities outside the universe. Thus, the definitions hold in that realm.

Like I said, if existence or being meant something different outside the universe, it wouldn't be existence or being anymore - it would be something else.

You're merely a hypocrite and a liar, and I pity you.

Again with the accusations. If you aren't going to be civil, you really shouldn't talk at all. I won't claim that you are debating, because you aren't. Repeating the same thing over and over again is hardly a debate.

You aren't actually talking about what we're debating, anyway. You're just trying to make up definitions.

I have made up no definitions. I have pulled them directly out of the sources they are found in.

Yes, they axioms as well.

By some definitions of the word. In logic or mathematics, axioms are assumptions upon which the rest of the proof or argument are based - and are statements which can be neither proven nor disproven. #2 is the closest to the definition used in logic or mathematics, without the stipulation that an axiom can be neither proven nor disproven - which comes mostly from mathematics.

And show me where a law of logic cannot also be an axiom.

In a sense, it could be. You cannot prove or disprove a law of logic - as it is a basis on which the entire system is based. And since the entire system is based upon it, the argument would be as well. However, the axioms of a given logical argument are specific to that argument. These would be the axioms of logic itself.

Already did.

No, you haven't. All you have done is imply that the definition of a word can only be used within the universe.

No, it was demonstrated in 1919. i.e. proven.

Really? We actually observed curvature of space and time? Just to give you your answer - no, we didn't. We made measurements that, mathematically, suggest curvature of space and time. Thus, the theory that they are curved was supported. In 50 years, we might make measurements that suggest otherwise with further experimentation and better instrumentation. At that point, we would have to discard the theory that it is curved, and go with the next.

This is the way science progresses. As long as all the available evidence backs up a given theory, it is a valid theory. With enough evidence, it becomes an accepted theory. With further evidence, it becomes the accepted theory. If evidence is found that contradicts it, it is either changed or discarded. That, my dear, is the scientific process.

I have.
Really?
Yes.



I'm going by your own words. If you want to lie about your stance--fine.
No, you are going by strawmen constructed by twisting my words.
No, I'm going by your own words. Continuing to lie won't help you.



So a biology textbook isn't scientific literature?
Not really.
Oh, but it is. So sorry.



And fact.
That all depends on how you define fact. If you define it as "100% proven",
Nothing is ever 100% proven. To even suggest that I am claiming such is a strawman.



As there's no dispute in the field of cosmology, then the dispute must be from outside the field, n'est-ce pas?
Anyone who reads articles on cosmology is aware that there is dispute.
I've read them; there is no dispute. You've yet to show any dispute.



Every time you said I was arrogant for my stance.
I never said you were arrogant for your stance.
Yes, you did.


You are arrogant for claiming infallibility
Strawman.



But the definition does say that.
Show me a definition that clearly states, "This definition only applies within the universe."
Remember the implicit premise? And remember George Smith's words?

So--what does any word mean apart from the referent point of the universe? Can you tell me?

Unless you can tell me, then just STFU, because all you're giving me is your ignorant opinion.



So you should be able to define it for me, shouldn't you? This isn't a hard concept.
I have defined it, over and over and over again.
No, you've given me what it means within the universe. What does it mean apart from the universe? Would you like to pick up the clue phone?



Yes there is, troll.
Then feel free to point it out.
I have, troll.

I'm fairly certain that constantly lying is considered flamebait, so do watch your step.



Yes---where are the referents in "apart from the universe"? Please tell me. Enlighten every single person on the planet, because you will be the first person in the history of the universe to be able to tell us.
I don't claim to know what does and does not exist apart from the universe,
But you do claim that "existence" has meaning apart from the universe (a positive claim). So you'd best show that it does. Go to it. You will be the first person in the history of the universe to do so. You will be a celebrity.



I note that you don't have anything to say about the quote from George Smith. How shall I take that?
I should answer to atheist propoganda as if it is the end-all-be-all of truth?
Ad hominem fallacy. Thank you very much.



Yet you don't understand them.
Ah, but I do. I simply don't tack on unnecessary restrictions and connotations. I go purely by the definition.
No, you do not. You simply take off the logical limits and think that you can freewheel it, when you can't.

Your wishes don't mean a damned thing, and you're substituting your wish that words mean things apart from the referent of the universe with the fact that it is those referents which provide the meaning. You are stealing the concept. And that's a fallacy.



Not when the context is not of the universe.
The word and the context are both defined by the users - human beings.
The context is always within the universe.


If the context was "only within the universe," then that would be a part of the definition. As it is, the words existence and being are both used to describe possibilities outside the universe. Thus, the definitions hold in that realm.
That's a positive claim. You should demonstrate the veracity of your claim.



You're merely a hypocrite and a liar, and I pity you.
Again with the accusations.
It's nothing more than the truth.


If you aren't going to be civil,
I am being civil.

If you can't respond to me without lying, then you shouldn't post. It's as simple as that.



You aren't actually talking about what we're debating, anyway. You're just trying to make up definitions.
I have made up no definitions.
Yes, you have. You've made up a definition for existence apart from the universe.



Yes, they are axioms as well.
By some definitions of the word.
Oh, so you only go by whatever definition suits you at the moment. How convenient for you!



And show me where a law of logic cannot also be an axiom.
In a sense, it could be.
By the dictionary, it is. And I know how you love the dictionary.



Already did.
No, you haven't. All you have done is imply that the definition of a word can only be used within the universe.
No, I've shown it.



No, it was demonstrated in 1919. i.e. proven.
Really?
Yes. Really.

My dear, you have a lot to learn about the scientific method.

No, I'm going by your own words. Continuing to lie won't help you.

I have asked you several times for an actual quote that says any of the things you have claimed I have said. You have yet to provide one. Thus, you are obviously not going by "my own words", or you could demonstrate them.

Oh, but it is. So sorry.

Not to an actual scientist. Peer-reviewed journal articles are really the only way to find out anything current in science. Even my best biology book, out of an entire shelful, was out of date by the time it was printed.

Nothing is ever 100% proven.

Exactly the point I have been making. So why exactly have you been arguing with me?

I've read them; there is no dispute. You've yet to show any dispute.

I have listed off several of the disputes. Are you claiming that there is not discussion over whether or not time is discrete or continuous? That there is not discussion over whether the universe expands and contracts cyclically or the Big Bang was a one-time event? That there is no discussion of whether the Big Bang was the beginning of time or simply was a singularity with so much mass that it slowed time to nearly stopping? These are all things you can find in scientific articles pertaining to these subjects.

So--what does any word mean apart from the referent point of the universe? Can you tell me?

A word means what it means, period.

If it doesn't apply somewhere, then the word has no meaning in that context. If it does apply, it applies in the same way everywhere.

No, you've given me what it means within the universe. What does it mean apart from the universe? Would you like to pick up the clue phone?

I've given you what the word means. As the definition itself implies nothing about inside or outside the universe, it means the same thing in or out (if there is an out at all). Otherwise, we would use a different word.

I'm fairly certain that constantly lying is considered flamebait, so do watch your step.

And yet I have not told a single lie. You have called me a liar repeatedly, when all I have done is repeat the exact arguments I have been making the entire time.

I'm still waiting for you to actually demonstrate that I have made the statements that you keep building up strawmen around. I'm still waiting for you to point out a lie I have told.

Basically, the conversation has gone like this:

You: "Blah blah blah. There is no god(s). God(s) cannot possibly exist"
Me: "You have to understand that you cannot make that statement with 100% certainty. You may be sure of it, but you cannot make measurements to provide evidence for it, so it is essentially your belief."
You: "HOW DARE YOU ATTACK WHAT I THINK?!?!?!?"
Me: "I didn't. In fact, you may be absolutely right. You just have to realize the possibility that you may be wrong."
You: "HOW DARE YOU ATTACK WHAT I THINK!?!?!?! YOU SAID THAT I CAN'T MAkE ANY DECISIONS AND TAKE A STANCE ON AN ISSUE!"
Me: "I didn't. In fact, you may be absolutely right. You just have to realize the possibility that you may be wrong. You absolutely should take a stance, you just shouldn't claim infallibility in it."
You: "HOW DARE YOU ATTACK WHAT I THINK!?!?!?!"
Me: "I didn't. In fact, you may be absolutely right. You just have to realize the possibility that you may be wrong."
You: "LIAR! YOU'RE A LIAR!"

But you do claim that "existence" has meaning apart from the universe (a positive claim).

No, I don't. I claim that, if there is existence apart from the universe, then existence would have meaning apart from the universe. Since I have not made a positive claim of the former, I have not made a positive claim of the latter.

Ad hominem fallacy. Thank you very much.

Hardly, it was even labeled as such.

No, you do not. You simply take off the logical limits and think that you can freewheel it, when you can't.

You mean the logical limits that you are placing there but are not inherent in the definition?

Your wishes don't mean a damned thing, and you're substituting your wish that words mean things apart from the referent of the universe with the fact that it is those referents which provide the meaning.

Human beings provide the meaning of words. The universe itself is simply where human beings reside.

Meanwhile, you are absolutely correct that my wishes have nothing to do with the definition of a word - which is why I haven't brought them in. I have simply looked at the actual definition, and gone from there.

That's a positive claim. You should demonstrate the veracity of your claim.

That claim is simple linguistics.

I am being civil.

Yes, repeatedly making false accusations and insults is perfectly civil.

Yes, you have. You've made up a definition for existence apart from the universe.

I haven't made up any defintion. I copied and pasted straight from the dictionary.

Oh, so you only go by whatever definition suits you at the moment. How convenient for you!

I hate to break it to you, but certain definitions of certain words apply in certain situations. When speaking of a scientific theory, we don't use the defintion that basically breaks down to "an idea someone had." No, we use the scientific definition - which is an explanation of a phenomenon with a great deal of backing evidence, for which no evidence that contradicts it has been found.

In logic, we don't use the lay-definition of axiom - we use the one defined for use in logic.

No, I've shown it.

Simply making a statement over and over again does not demonstrate it to be true.

Yes. Really.

My dear, you have a lot to learn about the scientific method.

Are you attempting to claim that, should we find evidence in the future that space and time are not curved, we would have to throw out the theory and come up with a new one that explained the new data?

Are you suggesting that the scientific method does not include testing of a hypothesis, with that hypothesis being disproven if evidence is found that contradicts it?

Unless you are suggesting this, you have no argument with me here. Science progresses by making hypotheses and either disproving them, or supporting them. But the possibility is always there that a given hypothesis can be disproven. That possibility is reduced with every new piece of evidence that supports it, rather than disproving it. But, as you yourself said, nothing can be proven 100%, therefore, as I have said, it is always open to possibly being disproven.

Once upon a time, we knew, with near absolute certainty, that the atom was the smallest particle of matter. Then, the results of new experiments challenged that notion. If we had considered the theory of the indivisible atom as being proven, that new evidence would have to have been thrown out, as incompatible with "THE TRUTH." However, what we did instead was reexamine the theory. In the end, we found that there were smaller particles that make up an atom. Then, we were pretty sure that the electron, neutron, and proton were the smallest particles. We didn't state that this was proven however, just that it was supported by current evidence. When we then found evidence of even smaller particles, the theory was changed yet again.

This, my dear, is how science works. If you can't understand that, then I am fairly certain it is you who does not understand the scientific method.

...No, I'm going by your own words. Continuing to lie won't help you.... Unless you can tell me, then just STFU, because all you're giving me is your ignorant opinion... I have, troll... I'm fairly certain that constantly lying is considered flamebait, so do watch your step... If you can't respond to me without lying, then you shouldn't post. It's as simple as that...
My dear, you have a lot to learn about the scientific method.


You an I, my friend, are perhaps similar in objective.

However, what you are doing here, is helping nobody.

You are flaming, certainly... flamebaiting, probably... you are certainly not treating your opponent with the respect she deserves.

Dempublicents would probably be well within her rights to take you before moderation, PURELY, on the vitriol in THIS one post. And, if she DID, you'd almost certainly be looking at the threat of suspension or ban.

You might not realise it, but you have been treated (thus far) with kid-gloves.

Trust me, if Dempublicents had wanted to, she'd have taken you to pieces by now.

I'd suggest you moderate your tone a little, before someone 'Moderates' it for you.

BAWAA tone it down a little dude.

Hate to see this thread locked or you get tossed.

Many of your comments are one liners which tend to get labeled a trolling.

Demp is on our side of this debate, spend the energy on the people that want you to learn about God in science.

And now back to our regularily schedule entertainment!

You are aware that an internet forum is not a one-on-one debate? It is rather annoying to get multiple posts back to back from the same person. If you don't like the way I post on an internet forum - so that it is convenient for everyone and not just one person - then please, refrain from participating in a conversation with me.

It takes a really inconsiderated person to flout the long established conventions of the internet. Sad to see you proving yourself a so inconsiderate of others. On usenet you would certainly have earned yourself the tag of moron by now..

Come back when you learn how to post properly and show consideration for other people.

BAWAA tone it down a little dude.

Hate to see this thread locked or you get tossed.

Many of your comments are one liners which tend to get labeled a trolling.

Demp is on our side of this debate, spend the energy on the people that want you to learn about God in science.

And now back to our regularily schedule entertainment!


Sorry to butt in, but it is clear that any trolling being done is coming from Dempublicents1. His inability to even reply to people in the proper way, together with his reluctance to accept proven scientific concepts makes me surprised BAWAA has been able to follow things with the success he has shown.

Dempublicents1 is the sort of person the religious side hold up as an example, and a very bad one at that, of the standard of debate shown by the science side.

You an I, my friend, are perhaps similar in objective.

However, what you are doing here, is helping nobody.

You are flaming, certainly... flamebaiting, probably... you are certainly not treating your opponent with the respect she deserves.

Dempublicents would probably be well within her rights to take you before moderation, PURELY, on the vitriol in THIS one post. And, if she DID, you'd almost certainly be looking at the threat of suspension or ban.

You might not realise it, but you have been treated (thus far) with kid-gloves.

Trust me, if Dempublicents had wanted to, she'd have taken you to pieces by now.

I'd suggest you moderate your tone a little, before someone 'Moderates' it for you.


Now I see a problem here. Dempublicents1 starts the flamebaiting (almost trolling in some cases) and BAWAA (and to a certain extent myself as well) fall into the "trap". The deliberate confusion caused by poor quoting and the mixing of relies to different people in the same post clearly shows a lack of consideration for other people which is one of the signs of a troll.

As for running to a moderator - that would be a positive sign s/he had completely lost the argument.

It takes a really inconsiderated person to flout the long established conventions of the internet.

What, making multiple posts in a row to address each different poster? On this forum, that's called 'spamming.' Stop it.

The rest of you will chill or chilling will be enforced with lasers. Of chillage.

What, making multiple posts in a row to address each different poster? On this forum, that's called 'spamming.' Stop it.

The rest of you will chill or chilling will be enforced with lasers. Of chillage.

One thing I'm not sure I understand. Your comment ''making multiple posts in a row to address each different poster? On this forum, that's called 'spamming.' '' Has me a little confused. Does that mean I cannot reply to several different people in the same post, or that I cannot post several replies in a row (in that I must wait until someone else posts before posting an additional reply to a third person). Oh, heck, that's confusing me. Would you mind giving a definition of spamming (just so I can avoid it).

Sorry to butt in, but it is clear that any trolling being done is coming from Dempublicents1. His inability to even reply to people in the proper way, together with his reluctance to accept proven scientific concepts makes me surprised BAWAA has been able to follow things with the success he has shown.

Dempublicents1 is the sort of person the religious side hold up as an example, and a very bad one at that, of the standard of debate shown by the science side.

Where did you get the impression that Demp is in the ID camp? She's completely & utterly opposed to bringing religion into science classes, and is a strong proponent of more science education in public schools.

What she's been doing over the past 5 million posts, is to point out that scientific theories aren't certainties. They are works in progress, and the best explanations we have for the facts we observe. And as such, she is 100% right.

Of course, she's also pointed out that BAAWA shouldn't claim that divinity cannot exist, as such claims aren't factual, but simply personal opinion. And again she is 100% right.

That a few of us won't accept your outrageous & unfounded claims, does in no way mean we are proponents of ID. Neither Demp or I am. However, by the looks of it, neither one of us are prepared to accept the unfounded claims of either side.

Personally, I am an Atheist with a capital A. But I am not about to claim I can disprove divinity, or that divinity cannot possibly be. I'm convinced divinity is nothing more than a silly idea, but that doesn't mean I can demonstrate it. How do you go about proving a negative?

Incidentially, all of you should chill.

One thing I'm not sure I understand. Your comment ''making multiple posts in a row to address each different poster? On this forum, that's called 'spamming.' '' Has me a little confused. Does that mean I cannot reply to several different people in the same post, or that I cannot post several replies in a row (in that I must wait until someone else posts before posting an additional reply to a third person). Oh, heck, that's confusing me. Would you mind giving a definition of spamming (just so I can avoid it).
It means you shouldn't do this if you can avoid it.

What, making multiple posts in a row to address each different poster? On this forum, that's called 'spamming.' Stop it.

The rest of you will chill or chilling will be enforced with lasers. Of chillage.

I've been using forum since before the internet existed and I do know what spamming is.

Muxing replies is rarely an acceptable way to post to any forum - especially one involved in semi-serious debate.

I would suggest you look up the real meaning of spamming.

One thing I'm not sure I understand. Your comment ''making multiple posts in a row to address each different poster? On this forum, that's called 'spamming.' '' Has me a little confused. Does that mean I cannot reply to several different people in the same post, or that I cannot post several replies in a row (in that I must wait until someone else posts before posting an additional reply to a third person). Oh, heck, that's confusing me. Would you mind giving a definition of spamming (just so I can avoid it).

It's generally held as making large numbers of posts in a short space of time, or constantly posting identical or useless topics. Since replying to each individual poster with a different post [as opposed to a single post addressing all of them] causes you to do this, it's frowned upon.

I would suggest you look up the real meaning of spamming.

I suggest you abide by the definition of it we use on these forums. 'Mixing replies' is the way it's done here.

Where did you get the impression that Demp is in the ID camp? She's completely & utterly opposed to bringing religion into science classes, and is a strong proponent of more science education in public schools.

I'm not sure where you think I said anything of the sort because I didn't.

However, the degree of "flamebaiting" does confuse her standpoint.

What she's been doing over the past 5 million posts, is to point out that scientific theories aren't certainties. They are works in progress, and the best explanations we have for the facts we observe. And as such, she is 100% right.

You may think so, I and a lot of others have tried to point out the errors in her argument.

Of course, she's also pointed out that BAAWA shouldn't claim that divinity cannot exist, as such claims aren't factual, but simply personal opinion. And again she is 100% right.

The reality is that there is no evidence for the existance of god(s) nor for the need for such god(s) to exist.

That a few of us won't accept your outrageous & unfounded claims,

Care to find one?

does in no way mean we are proponents of ID. Neither Demp or I am. However, by the looks of it, neither one of us are prepared to accept the unfounded claims of either side.

Personally, I am an Atheist with a capital A. But I am not about to claim I can disprove divinity, or that divinity cannot possibly be. I'm convinced divinity is nothing more than a silly idea, but that doesn't mean I can demonstrate it. How do you go about proving a negative?

Incidentially, all of you should chill.

Pass the bottle :)

I've been using forum since before the internet existed and I do know what spamming is.

Muxing replies is rarely an acceptable way to post to any forum - especially one involved in semi-serious debate.

I would suggest you look up the real meaning of spamming.

You do know that They define the rules in this universe, and you do not, right?

A far better man than I is credited with saying "Physics is the only real science, the rest is butterfly-collecting." (Ernest Rutherford, the discoverer of the atomic nucleus.)


Of course you expect an earnest physicist like Ernest Rutherford to say something like that, but as a halfhearted jest. He probably was so successful at physics because he lived and breathed it. But you would hardly expect someone like Dawkins or Hawkins to say the same.


All science is a sub-division of physics because physics is needed to explain the "why" rather than the "how". Physics lies behind chemisty which in turn props up biology.


If you think physics explains why humans are on earth, you have a rather extreme view on things. Biology may be based on chemistry, which is in turn based on physics, which is in turn based on mathematics. That does not make biology mathematics. It simply means that biology depends on mathematics. Many biologist would probably say that they are quite happily studying life without much knowledge of mathematics, even though they use methods, techniques, etc., which have been discovered using mathematics.


Age does have one disadvantage, you find yourself correcting the errors of the young for the umteenth time.


Come on, now, no complaining. You obviously want to be here on the forum. We all should be here to learn something. Even old fellows like yourself.


Sure, take a dead-calm pool of water and drop a non-rotating spherical object vertically into its centre. Now watch the circles.


Just like a typical physicist. They are always dealing with hypothetical situations. Have you ever found a dead-calm pool of water? Have you ever been able to find a perfectly spherical object, let alone find a way of dropping it without giving it any rotating force?



On the subject of circles, the story I always liked was when Giotto was asked by Pope Boniface VIII to prove his skill as an artist, Giotto drew a perfect circle freehand.


Yes, I have heard of that story. No doubt it left an impression on those present. However, I cannot believe that it was a perfect circle. It was something like ink or chalk on a marble floor or piece of paper (I can't recall the details) that resembled the concept of a circle, rather well it seems.



It doesn't, at least not until you get enough mass to create a curvature in space/time.


But you have yet to define what the force of gravity is. All we have is definitions based on what it does.


At the moment we can't arrive at a speed because we cannot move enough mass to allow the detection.


Interesting. And do you see a way around this problem?


In effect, it isn't (and it is). It is a force carrier (a Gauge boson) which, to make life easier, is normally looked on as being a particle.


So you could possibly forgive a skeptic for believing that you don't really know what gravity is. Well, is it a particle, or isn't it? Is this like the light issue, i.e., particle properties and wave properties?


Mmmmm. They don't really. What they do is to distort space/time and you just happen to need energy to get out of that distortion.


I don't see a distortion, though, I just see that the ground I stand on always appears downward. But I am curious...how does one come to the conclusion that one is living in a distortion? If you want to answer this question, could you please use language for dummies? The last time I did physics was in year 12 (many years ago).

Another question, if gravity is caused by particles, then I suppose you would say that the universe is simply filled with such particles?

It's generally held as making large numbers of posts in a short space of time, or constantly posting identical or useless topics. Since replying to each individual poster with a different post [as opposed to a single post addressing all of them] causes you to do this, it's frowned upon.


Really! I had no idea that was spamming. In that case, I have been spamming. (Looks at hand....damm those spamming fingers).
My apologies.

One thing I'm not sure I understand. Your comment ''making multiple posts in a row to address each different poster? On this forum, that's called 'spamming.' '' Has me a little confused. Does that mean I cannot reply to several different people in the same post, or that I cannot post several replies in a row (in that I must wait until someone else posts before posting an additional reply to a third person). Oh, heck, that's confusing me. Would you mind giving a definition of spamming (just so I can avoid it).

It has me totally confused as well. Spamming has a very clear definition on the internet and I've not stumbled across any in this thread or any others I've read.

I started with "forums" in the early 1980s when we had a system called Prestel in the UK. 300baud upload/1200baud download and a long distant call to connect - certainly not the good-old-days :)

Since then I've posted to forums and even run a few, though in most cases I would defer to the superior sytem of usenet where there is a lot more flexability.

If a properly organized forum you have a concept called threading. That means that although you can read posts in date/time order it is more usual to follow the thread of an argument. It would show posts like this:-

A
>AA
>>AAA
>>>AAAA
>>>>AAAAA
>>>AAAB
>>>AAAC
B
>BB
C

In this you can clearly see that "A" starts a thread, "AA" replies and the AAA replies to that. AAAA, AAAB and AAAC all reply to the post from AAA and so on.

Now if you start replying to two or more people in the same post (and there are times when you do need to) then you start a new thread and reply to each person pointing them to the new thread.

Now of course this forum doesn't impliment true threading, so life is difficult to start with. But life becomes even more difficult when somebody muxes two sub debates into one post - it simply makes it very hard work for the reader to then reply in context without a lot of editing.

Hope this helps.

One thing I'm not sure I understand. Your comment ''making multiple posts in a row to address each different poster? On this forum, that's called 'spamming.' '' Has me a little confused.
So far as I know if you wish to reply to more than one post at a time you are supposed to do so using only one post. I think this includes when you are replying to multiple posters as well.

So for instance your post might look something like this

...comments you are replying to...
your comments

...comments you are replying to...
your comments

...comments you are replying to...

At least that is my interpretation, although if you are still unsure it is probably best to check with someone over in the moderation forum. ;)

Where did you get the impression that Demp is in the ID camp? She's completely & utterly opposed to bringing religion into science classes, and is a strong proponent of more science education in public schools.
I'm not sure where you think I said anything of the sort because I didn't.

However, the degree of "flamebaiting" does confuse her standpoint.
I got that impression because of the following. I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I'm sure you'll agree you kind of give the impression.
Dempublicents1 is the sort of person the religious side hold up as an example, and a very bad one at that, of the standard of debate shown by the science side.
EDIT: I just realized I can't even read... So sorry about that. I hope I managed to make you laugh instead... Ooops.
What she's been doing over the past 5 million posts, is to point out that scientific theories aren't certainties. They are works in progress, and the best explanations we have for the facts we observe. And as such, she is 100% right.
You may think so, I and a lot of others have tried to point out the errors in her argument.
I'm aware some have tried. I don't remember if you were amongst them, but I'll take your word for it.

Whatever, it doesn't mean she is wrong. A nice example would be the gravity these last many posts have gravitated about. We thought we knew, and yet it turns out we were wrong. Why did we discover our mistake? Because theories (or laws as it were) aren't set in stone. Sure, all our theories are formulated to exmlain precisely how things work & why, but it doesn't mean there's no possibility they're wrong. It just means it's incredibly unlikely. There is a staggeringly huge difference.
The entire scientific community would most likely grind to a halt, if all current theories were infallible.
Hopefully one day that won't be the case, but that day hasn't come yet.
Of course, she's also pointed out that BAAWA shouldn't claim that divinity cannot exist, as such claims aren't factual, but simply personal opinion. And again she is 100% right.
The reality is that there is no evidence for the existance of god(s) nor for the need for such god(s) to exist.
Quite right. And you won't hear me arguing that divinity exists outside the minds of certain unfortunate individuals either... But!
The lack of need and evidence for something, doesn't automatically bar the possibility of it. Sure, I'm convinced no gods exists. But objectively I can't make the claim that gods can't/don't exist. It's like saying The Pink Unicorn or The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. How would you prove such a statement? Just because it's completely unreasonable, doen't mean it's completely impossible.

By the way, welcome to the weird world of philosophy. This is why science & religion doesn't mix.
That a few of us won't accept your outrageous & unfounded claims,
Care to find one?
I'm just gonna backpedal a bit here...

I didn't mean "your" as in "your personal". I meant claims like BAAWA's claim that the divine cannot possibly exist. Or that scientific theories are 100% infallible certainties.

As already stated, I simply can't remember whether you were amongst the people making such claims. Too many pages, and too many posters with names beginning with a B. Sorry about that.

does in no way mean we are proponents of ID. Neither Demp or I am. However, by the looks of it, neither one of us are prepared to accept the unfounded claims of either side.

Personally, I am an Atheist with a capital A. But I am not about to claim I can disprove divinity, or that divinity cannot possibly be. I'm convinced divinity is nothing more than a silly idea, but that doesn't mean I can demonstrate it. How do you go about proving a negative?

Incidentially, all of you should chill.
Pass the bottle
Heh, I'm afraid I'll break my monitor if I try.

So far as I know if you wish to reply to more than one post at a time you are supposed to do so using only one post. I think this includes when you are replying to multiple posters as well.

At least that is my interpretation, although if you are still unsure it is probably best to check with someone over in the moderation forum. ;)

Personally, I really don't see the difference between posting three posts of moderate length, and one post that is a big as all three of them put together. Neither do I have a good deal of patience for waiting around for someone to post something so that I can send another post. Obviously, the rules are not so strict as to ban someone the minute they post two replies back to back, but I would be interesting in knowing how many posts in a row the mods are prepared to tolerate.

Perhaps I can help in one part of this discussion (at least, I'm going to try).
BAAWA: And how can you even make any claims about "outside the universe"? Isn't saying that something exists "outside the universe" merely trying to insulate the claim from being examined? Isn't it just a cop-out?
Dempublicents: Good question. So why are you doing it?
For some, it might be. For others, it is a discussion of logic.
________
BAAWA: What does "being" mean apart from the universe? I shall ask that until you define it for me.
Dempublicents: The same thing it means inside the universe

BAAWA: How do you know that? What is your ontological basis for making that claim?
Dempublicents: The definition of being is a given. The word has been defined. It's meaning doesn't change because of location.
BAAWA: Within the universe. What about apart from the universe?
Dempublicents: The word has been defined. It's meaning doesn't change because of location.

BAAWA: It can change because of the context. The universe is the context for the word "being". Tell me--what is the context for "being" apart from the universe?
Hint: you have no basis to make your claim. You haven't any ontological framework.
Dempublicents: Where in the definition is the restriction to "within the universe"? Again, you are very clearly imposing a restriction that does not exist within the actual definition. …There is nothing inherent in the definition that makes the context "within the universe." … Find me a credible source with a definition of existence that limits it to within the universe.

BAAWA: Define for me existence "apart from the universe". No, you can't say that it's the same as within the universe, for you have no ontological framework to make that case. You claim that you can't have any measurements "apart from the universe", so to say that "existence" has the same definition apart from the universe as within the universe is to contradict yourself. It is to say that you can measure the immeasurable!
Dempublicents: The definition of a word is the definition of a word. If existence outside the universe (should there be any) is not the same as existence inside the universe, then it isn't existence at all - it is something else. This isn't a hard concept.

BAAWA: You yourself said that "outside the universe" is an immeasurable condition, and as such, there can be no evidence for it. So to be open to something that cannot exist is damned foolish.
Dempublicents: No, I didn't. I said there can be no empirical evidence. If there is something outside the universe, and it chooses to interact with some of those within it - that is evidence to them. It simply might not be empirical evidence.
If I see something, but I am alone and no one else sees it, I have the evidence to possibly believe I have seen it. I can't measure it with instruments if I can't repeat the occurrence, and everyone else might disbelieve me, as I cannot produce empirical evidence. That doesn't make my sight any less of evidence to me.

BAAWA: Isn't our entire explanatory framework built upon the universe? Aren't our words tied to the universe? If you step apart from the universe--apart from the framework--how do you get any meaning? Don't words have to have referents? Where are the referents in "apart from the universe"?
The definition of our being is not dependent upon being within the universe --just the opposite. The definition of within universe is dependent upon our being. Consciousness is the ontological basis for our existence. Being, for us, is being conscious. If the conscious entity moves "outside of the universe", then one's being does too. Whatever had been "outside the universe" then becomes the universe (which may well include what was previously "inside").

Personally, I really don't see the difference between posting three posts of moderate length, and one post that is a big as all three of them put together. Neither do I have a good deal of patience for waiting around for someone to post something so that I can send another post. Obviously, the rules are not so strict as to ban someone the minute they post two replies back to back, but I would be interesting in knowing how many posts in a row the mods are prepared to tolerate.

Well, it's not so much an issue of "true threading" as nested threading... Of the online PHP forum "Scripts" being used, Invision uses it to some extent, but there has been no implimentation in the other two majors (phpBB and vBulletin)... We really have more of a Bulletin Board here, than a true "forum" in the historic net-sense....

There are however some nested threading PHP BB's... They just aren't as "user friendly" as the majors... and concentrate more on information that graphics... But such is the push and shove system which happens normatively when things are based from the desire and use of customers... A large chunk of the present internet community (the vast majority) just isn't as tech-savvy as it was in the 80's and early 90's...

This is all a side note; and if a new thread wants to be created it should... Thus, I end this temporary hijack for comment.... EOM

Actually I question the honest of the ID proponents. There have been claims that they are not pushing their religious views and they are not suggesting the ID is God.

However, I am reading Dembowski's book and in the first chapter alone there are numerous God references.

As said in another thread, Dembowski is an orthodox Christian and none that I know would say that God may not have done it.

Even in this link; the articles are more about why Darwin is wrong then why ID is right.

Nothing even written even gives me pause to think well maybe.....

A reference to God is not the same as pushing a religious view. Since ID postulates that a designer is present, it would be rather silly to write a book about ID while ensuring that there is no mention of God. A man is allowed to write the book from his point of view, and given that he is a Christian, why should he not mention God. An IDer who was a Jew may just as well mention replace God with G--d.

As for arguing the case for ID, in reading Dembski's articles, I have found hardly any references to why Darwin was wrong. I think it's more Wells who likes to do this.

Black Forrest, do you claim to have an objective view on this debate?

Personally, I really don't see the difference between posting three posts of moderate length, and one post that is a big as all three of them put together.
Well I could be entirely wrong, (I'm neither a moderator nor particularly 'clued up' on how the internet or the jolt server works), but I suspect that each time a post is submitted to the server it uses resources and so posting the same amount of text in 3 posts instead of 1 post risks clogging up the server...

Neither do I have a good deal of patience for waiting around for someone to post something so that I can send another post.
I can sympathise with that, but if it is true that each time a post is submitted it uses a certain amount of the server's resources, it might actually take longer due to the server being over-taxed (although that's quite a big 'if' considering I'm not even sure if my suggested explanation actually even makes sense, much less is true in this case.... ;) ) .

Obviously, the rules are not so strict as to ban someone the minute they post two replies back to back, but I would be interesting in knowing how many posts in a row the mods are prepared to tolerate.
So far as I can tell the mods all try to be reasonable without letting things get out of hand, for instance they appear (to me) to tend to be more tolerent with posters where the rule infringement is borderline and it's likely the poster didnt mean to break any rules (for instance the poster is new to the site or has a good record of not being warned or engaging in borderline posting).

If you ask in moderation someone might be able to direct you to the rule itself (that would probably be the best way to be certain, my memory isnt necessarily that great....LOL otherwise I'd probably remember where I had read the rule) ;)

It takes a really inconsiderated person to flout the long established conventions of the internet.

Please demonstrate for me the "established convention of the internet" that says I should spam the thread instead of condensing my reply? In fact, I have been asked more than once in the past to please condense. Seems like this isn't so "established", now isn't it.

Sad to see you proving yourself a so inconsiderate of others.

In case you didn't notice, it is precisely because I am considerate of others that I condense posts.

You seem to be the only one with a problem with it.

together with his reluctance to accept proven scientific concepts

I have shown no reluctance to accept any scientific concepts - only to accept the illogical stance that they are actually proven. To prove something, you have to be 100% certain about it. There is nothing in science that meets this requirement. Even BAAWA has admitted that.

Dempublicents1 is the sort of person the religious side hold up as an example,

Hardly. In case you haven't noticed, I get attacked by both the militant atheists and the fundamentalist religious. It's one of those things that comes from actually being logical and reasonable. If you don't come from an extreme position, all the extremists are going to attack your position.

Of course you expect an earnest physicist like Ernest Rutherford to say something like that, but as a halfhearted jest. He probably was so successful at physics because he lived and breathed it. But you would hardly expect someone like Dawkins or Hawkins to say the same.

I'm too young to have met Rutherford but I have attended lectures by Steven Hawkings and a relation of mine actually acted as his assistant for several years. Would SH claim Physics is the only real science? I don't know, b ut what I do know is that it underpins exery other science.

If you think physics explains why humans are on earth, you have a rather extreme view on things. Biology may be based on chemistry, which is in turn based on physics, which is in turn based on mathematics. That does not make biology mathematics. It simply means that biology depends on mathematics. Many biologist would probably say that they are quite happily studying life without much knowledge of mathematics, even though they use methods, techniques, etc., which have been discovered using mathematics.

I think you are 100% right, and it is true that the only biologist I know well (OK, actually a biochemist) is not the best person with maths - but then neither am I :)

Come on, now, no complaining. You obviously want to be here on the forum. We all should be here to learn something. Even old fellows like yourself.

You got it :)

Just like a typical physicist. They are always dealing with hypothetical situations. Have you ever found a dead-calm pool of water? Have you ever been able to find a perfectly spherical object, let alone find a way of dropping it without giving it any rotating force?

Actually, yes, that is one experiment I did - way back in the late 60s. The pool was actually oil because that made it easier. The ball was a high quality ball bearing and the release was from an electromagnet. Highspeed flash photos taken from underneith the pool of oil did show perfect circles.

Yes, I have heard of that story. No doubt it left an impression on those present. However, I cannot believe that it was a perfect circle. It was something like ink or chalk on a marble floor or piece of paper (I can't recall the details) that resembled the concept of a circle, rather well it seems.

To be honest I can't remember the details, in fact until I looked it up I was thinking it was Michael Angelo - just proves how memory can play tricks.

But you have yet to define what the force of gravity is. All we have is definitions based on what it does.

Actually, gravity may not be a force as such, there may be no graviton to find. We know matter (and energy) distorts space and that matter and enery always follow the line of lease resistance and so follow the curved space a large body creates around itself. We (or anything else for that matter) tend to fall towards the center of this distortion but that doesn't mean there has to be a force pulling us.

Gravity is a very strange concept and, to a certain extent, it is still one of the few great unknowns -partly because it is the weakest of all forces.

Interesting. And do you see a way around this problem?

Yes, we need to find a nearby black hole and drop something in under controled conditions. We may one day find sensitive enough instrements to do it with a smaller gravity well, we will just have to wait and see.

So you could possibly forgive a skeptic for believing that you don't really know what gravity is. Well, is it a particle, or isn't it? Is this like the light issue, i.e., particle properties and wave properties?

Ok. We know exactly what gravity is. We also do not know exactly what gravity is. :)

I know it sounds strange, even very strange, but that is it. We knwo what gravity is in the sense that we know what it does, we can predict with 100% certainty what happens with its interreactions with matter or other forces. We know all its properties except one - what the hell it is.

Now if you get confused rest assured that even to cosmologist are confused. Gravity is so strange that there has been the idea put forward that we need the extra dimensions of String Theory and/or Brane Theory to even hope to explain it.

I don't see a distortion, though, I just see that the ground I stand on always appears downward. But I am curious...how does one come to the conclusion that one is living in a distortion? If you want to answer this question, could you please use language for dummies? The last time I did physics was in year 12 (many years ago).

The proof for the distortion came in 1919 when there was a total solar eclipse. It allowed observers to plot the curvature of space around the Sun. This was done by carefully plotting the positions of selected stars, some close to the sun's edge, some further out. Plotting those positions in relation to their normal relative positions showed the distortion was exactly as predicted the the Theory of Relativity. For a better explination take a loke at:-

http://www.physics.brown.edu/physics/demopages/Demo/astro/demo/8c2000.htm

Another question, if gravity is caused by particles, then I suppose you would say that the universe is simply filled with such particles?

Yes, and it may even be an explination for some things attributed at the moment to Dark Matter. It all depends on how much mass the graviton (if it exists) has in its own right.

Any more questions? I'm always happy to help people understand cosmology as it is such a fascinating subject.

Still trying to mislead people I see. Lies do not become you, my dear. That is a common idea held by some scientists, just as theism is a common idea held by most scientists (and most people in the world). There is no science that is dependent upon any such assumption - therefore the assumption is not made in science.


In my defense, I simply cannot see where I have been lying. Really. Either you are trying to bait me, or your really know what I believe to be true and are suggesting that I am posting something quite different to what I believe to be true. What I said was, ''one common idea within science''. What I meant was that science consists of a community of scientists, many of whom have rather different personal philosophies. Some of these people hold this idea. In fact, there are so many of them, that I consider it a common idea. Was I lying? Many people actually believe that everything that we observe in the material world can be accounted for using laws of nature and randomness. The science that such people do will be influenced by this belief. I really think you have overstepped your bounds in claiming that I have lied here.

Sounds like you really need something to pick on.........
How about this:

When a scientist approaches the question 'where did humans come from?', he can't just look at humans and see the obvious answer. Nowhere do you find 'made by God' stamped on a human cell, or 'descended from a single living ancestor' either. So he has to go about collecting evidence, and he may arrive at a conclusion. Now, he basically has two options. Either he can say that perhaps humans descended from monkeys (i.e., that humans evolved from a single ancestor of all life). Another conclusion is that God made humans so. Now, if he decides that one conclusion (humans descended from monkeys) can be tested, and humans-made-by-God cannot be tested, would he be reasonable to take the first conclusion as the best one, simply because he thinks it is theoretically testable while the other is not. (I am not conceding that ID cannot test it's hypotheses, just making a point here.)

Now, just what is it about humans that can be tested to see if they were descended from monkeys? Genetic evidence? The high level of homology between humans and monkeys? As has been already pointed out, this homology cannot be made to rule out the humans-made-by-God conclusion, because it is easily explained. That makes some people frustrated, I know, because they feel that God can be invoked to explain anything. I disagree, and think that unfair. I maintain that if God is used to explain something, there must be rules. That God made the world with fossils already present would be breaking a rule. This is an unreasonable explanation for fossils. Neither is it necessary for the human-made-by-God conclusion. That God made humans genes similar to monkey genes is not breaking the rules, because it is a reasonable conclusion. Both monkeys and humans have a lot in common, in terms of metabolism, age, immune systems, nervous systems, etc. The homology is explained by being designed to fulfill a similar purpose.


There is an assumption that we can explain things that occur naturally through natural processes - but that sounds an awful lot like common sense, doesn't it? It would be like saying, "We can explain flying by delineating the flying process."


Yes, that would be common sense. But what isn't common sense is to assume that human beings came about through natural processes and thus come to the conclusion that humans beings are descended from monkeys.


It isn't just about how many mutations you need (and assuming that they happen one at a time or one in each generation is already a HUGE assumption), it is about how likely it is that a particular set of mutations will occur. However, to make such a calculation, you have to remove any idea of randomness from the process and make the assumption that those particular mutations had to have happened - that it couldn't possibly have happened any other way and ended up rather different. This is a rather large problem, as directed evolution is not a part of the theory - and is, in fact, something you only hear of from people who don't understand the theory at all.

All of evolution must be explained by either a law or randomness. So far, we have one law (selection) and another one that combines with randomness (mutation). Probabilities are calculated by looking as the randomness element in mutation. But I take your criticism. My post (to which you were replying) was rather hasty, too brief, and not well thought through.

As for directed evolution, I wasn't even referring to it. How did you get to that?

In my defense, I simply cannot see where I have been lying.

Every time you make the comment that science assumes that everything occurs through natural processes, you are lying outright. The first time you said it, it could have been that you were simply in error. The second time, maybe you just hadn't quite gotten it yet. Your continued posting of it, in different forums and to different people, clearly suggests that you are intentionally misleading people in order to try and support your point.

What I said was, ''one common idea within science''. What I meant was that science consists of a community of scientists, many of whom have rather different personal philosophies. Some of these people hold this idea. In fact, there are so many of them, that I consider it a common idea. Was I lying?

This is not what you said. In fact, it is what I replied to you. What you said is that one common idea in science is the assmumption that everything occurs through natural processes. That is not an idea in science. It is an idea that some scientists hold (albeit, very few of them - just like very few of the rest of the world do), but it not an assumption used in science.

Many people actually believe that everything that we observe in the material world can be accounted for using laws of nature and randomness.

Personal belief != science.

The science that such people do will be influenced by this belief.

Not if they are properly following the scientific method - which should be determined by peer review.

When a scientist approaches the question 'where did humans come from?', he can't just look at humans and see the obvious answer. Nowhere do you find 'made by God' stamped on a human cell, or 'descended from a single living ancestor' either. So he has to go about collecting evidence, and he may arrive at a conclusion. Now, he basically has two options. Either he can say that perhaps humans descended from monkeys (i.e., that humans evolved from a single ancestor of all life). Another conclusion is that God made humans so.

(a) There are hardly only two possible conclusions. Conclusions come from the evidence in science. As no evidence for God other than "I have faith that God is there," (which isn't, by the way, empirical evidence) can be found, no one can possibly use scientific evidence to come to the conclusion that God did anything at all.

Now, if he decides that one conclusion (humans descended from monkeys) can be tested, and humans-made-by-God cannot be tested, would he be reasonable to take the first conclusion as the best one, simply because he thinks it is theoretically testable while the other is not.

Now this part, at least is true. He may ardently believe the second idea - that God did it. However, within science, we can only deal with that which can be tested - and Godditit cannot. Therefore, within science, a scientist must draw his conclusions from the evidence that can be obtained - and must not posit anything outside of the universe, as empirical evidence for that cannot be obtained.

Now, just what is it about humans that can be tested to see if they were descended from monkeys? Genetic evidence? The high level of homology between humans and monkeys? As has been already pointed out, this homology cannot be made to rule out the humans-made-by-God conclusion, because it is easily explained.

You miss something here. It has been pointed out to you numerous times, but perhaps we'll try again.

SCIENCE IS NOT TRYING TO RULE OUT THE IDEA THAT HUMANS WERE MADE BY GOD. In fact, science can take no position on that issue at all - so it doesn't. That idea is always open, but cannot be scientific theory unless empirical evidence for even the existence of God can be found.

That God made the world with fossils already present would be breaking a rule. This is an unreasonable explanation for fossils.

You are putting limits on an omnipotent being? That's rather illogical, don't you think? Given the defintion of omnipotent and all?

All of evolution must be explained by either a law or randomness. So far, we have one law (selection) and another one that combines with randomness (mutation). Probabilities are calculated by looking as the randomness element in mutation.

Not really. Much like the people who ask about the probability of drawing out a deck of cards and dealing it in exact order, the probability calculations assume that a given pattern (that which is here) automatically is less likely than another pattern. What they fail to see is that they are retroactively assigning that pattern.

To discuss probability in terms of evolution, we would have to, instead, compare it to dealing out a deck of cards, getting any old random order, and then going, "Look! Look at the pattern!"

As for directed evolution, I wasn't even referring to it. How did you get to that?

I was pointing out that the probability calculations IDers and Creationists like to bring out are absolutely dependent on the idea of directed evolution. They assume that, like dealing out a deck of cards in perfect order and therefore claiming that less likely because they see a pattern in it, getting the pattern they currently see in life is less likely than seeing something that they would place less significance on. This isn't, of course, true. The probability of dealing out a deck of cards in exact order is precisely as likely as any other order. It is the significance we place upon it that is different.

I was pointing out that the probability calculations IDers and Creationists like to bring out are absolutely dependent on the idea of directed evolution. They assume that, like dealing out a deck of cards in perfect order and therefore claiming that less likely because they see a pattern in it, getting the pattern they currently see in life is less likely than seeing something that they would place less significance on. This isn't, of course, true. The probability of dealing out a deck of cards in exact order is precisely as likely as any other order. It is the significance we place upon it that is different.

Exactly,.... That is, "random" may or may not exist. (Take the random number generator used in programs.... none are actually "random"; just using extremely complex equations to create a sense of "randomness").... Chaos Theory "..chaos theory deals with the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that (under certain conditions) exhibit the phenomenon known as chaos, most famously characterised by sensitivity to initial conditions. As a result of this sensitivity, the observed behavior of physical systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, even though the model of the system is 'deterministic' in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters..." IOW, any sufficiently complex system will have so many factors so as to make the result (being unable to account accurately for the whole), seem random... Though it is in fact ordered... Even shuffling an ordered deck, exactly, returns a "pattern"... and thus makes such illusions in-fact "ordered" (1,27,2,28,3,29,4,30...26,52).. reshuffling just applying the same pattern.... Effectively, with control of the shuffling, you could track the cards to create any "pattern" you wish...

Given the same initial conditions, shuffling the deck with the same start, maintaining the same conditions during shuffling (and all variables) will return the same result....

And this shows how little you know of the scientific process NO theory or deduction is un-questioned. That’s the whole point of that little thing called the peer review process.
I would say that generally speaking no one is questioning Newtons Laws as they pertain to Earth. Or am I missing some great discovery that the Laws of Gravity on Earth have been found to be wrong? While there may be variations to his laws in relation to extra-terrestial bodies he is generally accepted by the general masses = unquestioned!

I and others have looked at the real evidence without hypothesis blocking what is actually there and agree that there is evidence of Micro-evolution but none supporting Macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution would be changes within a species such as adapting to new diseases, AIDS adapting to new treatments... This is limited to changes that can improve the species without changing it into another species. The is boundless evidence of this in the world but is not evidence of a larger scale of evolution. Many of the "stages" in the Human evolution if done up without the added, and unproven existance of, hair over so much of the body would not draw second glances walking down the streets of any city today (lol particulairly in England lol -- JOKE I appologize to you buggers accross the pond)
Macro-evolution would of course then be changing from one species into another. The fossil evidence can not support this type of change as more than two supposed "stages" of development can be found in the same strata. Further stages in a row can not be found close to each other and often are on seperate continents being inconsistent with time frame and continental drift time lines. The sudden exsistance of complex life forms also fails to support the Millions of yesr that would have been required to change form a single celled organism into complex lifeforms.

Good night see you in a couple of days?

I would say that generally speaking no one is questioning Newtons Laws as they pertain to Earth. Or am I missing some great discovery that the Laws of Gravity on Earth have been found to be wrong? While there may be variations to his laws in relation to extra-terrestial bodies he is generally accepted by the general masses = unquestioned!
That's because it can go unquestioned that they work as an approximation of the truth, which is good enough for the "masses".

Every time you make the comment that science assumes that everything occurs through natural processes, you are lying outright. The first time you said it, it could have been that you were simply in error. The second time, maybe you just hadn't quite gotten it yet. Your continued posting of it, in different forums and to different people, clearly suggests that you are intentionally misleading people in order to try and support your point.


I merely said that people hold this view. I was not trying to say the the scientific method is based on such an assumption. The scientific method is a process where someone .....aw heck, I've said that too many times, and perhaps it's not necessary. The scientific method does rely on assumptions, but does not necessarily make that particular assumption. My initial point was that some scientists do make that assumption when using the scientific method. I do believe this, so I am not lying.


This is not what you said. In fact, it is what I replied to you. What you said is that one common idea in science is the assmumption that everything occurs through natural processes. That is not an idea in science. It is an idea that some scientists hold (albeit, very few of them - just like very few of the rest of the world do), but it not an assumption used in science.


Looks like you are splitting hairs to me.



Not if they are properly following the scientific method - which should be determined by peer review.


Which only works if our peers are not biased in the same way that you or I are.


(a) There are hardly only two possible conclusions. Conclusions come from the evidence in science. As no evidence for God other than "I have faith that God is there," (which isn't, by the way, empirical evidence) can be found, no one can possibly use scientific evidence to come to the conclusion that God did anything at all.


I meant that there was basically two possible conclusions that I wanted to deal with, not that there was only two possible conclusions in the whole world to account for the presence of humans on earth. But I see that we have already a conflict over the definition of conclusion, since you have taken conclusion to mean that explanation which is arrived at based on empirical evidence. Let me insert the word 'explanation' in place of 'conclusion'. I was questioning the reason behind using one explanation over another one in the absence of empirical evidence for either of them, simply on the basis of one being potentially testable, and the other one not. So long as the potentially testable explanation remains practically untestable, it isn't reasonable to discard any reasonable explanation.



Now this part, at least is true. He may ardently believe the second idea - that God did it. However, within science, we can only deal with that which can be tested - and Godditit cannot. Therefore, within science, a scientist must draw his conclusions from the evidence that can be obtained - and must not posit anything outside of the universe, as empirical evidence for that cannot be obtained.


But the idea that 'natural causes did it' is also an idea. It has not been proven. All the empirical evidence that we have uncovered can be interpreted as being either designed or caused by natural causes (well, more or less, in some cases there may well be a good deal of hand waving, perhaps on both sides of the debate). So we are still where we started, not able to rule out either God or natural causes.


You miss something here. It has been pointed out to you numerous times, but perhaps we'll try again.

SCIENCE IS NOT TRYING TO RULE OUT THE IDEA THAT HUMANS WERE MADE BY GOD. In fact, science can take no position on that issue at all - so it doesn't. That idea is always open, but cannot be scientific theory unless empirical evidence for even the existence of God can be found.


And in case you missed it, I was not trying to say that this is was science does, only that some people do this, and I am questioning the reason behind this. And there is no need to shout. I am not criticising the scientific method, but the philosophy that thinks that the scientific method shows that we are all descended from a single life form.


You are putting limits on an omnipotent being? That's rather illogical, don't you think? Given the defintion of omnipotent and all?


Perhaps you could see it that way. I prefer to see God as the origin of reason, and that it would be an honour to Him that we consider Him reasonable. That he does things that are outside of our ability to reason is a very good possibility, but to say that he does silly things would hardly be honouring Him now, would it.


Not really. Much like the people who ask about the probability of drawing out a deck of cards and dealing it in exact order, the probability calculations assume that a given pattern (that which is here) automatically is less likely than another pattern. What they fail to see is that they are retroactively assigning that pattern.

To discuss probability in terms of evolution, we would have to, instead, compare it to dealing out a deck of cards, getting any old random order, and then going, "Look! Look at the pattern!"


I'm not sure that I completely understand that last statement, but if I do, then I think you are implying that there is no specified requirements for life (which would be wrong). Life as we know it must meet certain requirements in order to survive. The ability to replicate is one. If a species does not meet that requirement, it does not survive. So it is perfectly normal to think of evolution of life as having to meet a certain set of conditions. In order to reach those conditions, one needs a certain sequence of mutational events.


I was pointing out that the probability calculations IDers and Creationists like to bring out are absolutely dependent on the idea of directed evolution. They assume that, like dealing out a deck of cards in perfect order and therefore claiming that less likely because they see a pattern in it, getting the pattern they currently see in life is less likely than seeing something that they would place less significance on. This isn't, of course, true. The probability of dealing out a deck of cards in exact order is precisely as likely as any other order. It is the significance we place upon it that is different.


Still not sure if I understand you right. But directed evolution is the idea of life having to fulfill a certain set of restrictions, if I understand it right.

I merely said that people hold this view. I was not trying to say the the scientific method is based on such an assumption. The scientific method is a process where someone .....aw heck, I've said that too many times, and perhaps it's not necessary. The scientific method does rely on assumptions, but does not necessarily make that particular assumption. My initial point was that some scientists do make that assumption when using the scientific method. I do believe this, so I am not lying.

Anyone who makes that assumption when applying the scientific method is not applying the scientific method, as it does not allow for such untestable assumptions.

Positing a natural cause for something because the measurements you have taken point to such a cause does not necessitate an assumption that the supernatural was not involved. It simply necessitates the lack of an assumption that the supernatural was involved.

If my experiments point to the idea that a particular genetic pathway causes a morphological feature in a cell, I may posit that the gene at the beginning of that pathway is the cause of the feature. I am not assuming that God doesn't somehow interfere with the workings of the cell. I am, however, looking at the evidence which suggests that the gene is involved. I would then make predictions based upon that. For instance, I might posit that a cell with that gene knocked out would not have the particular feature. If this prediction is found to be correct, I will have given support to the idea that the gene in question does cause the feature I was seeing. However, I still hvae made no assumption that God is not involved. God could be directing the workings of the gene, or determining in which cells the feature will appear. Thing is, I can't measure God, so I posit nothing at all about God either way.

Looks like you are splitting hairs to me.

When discussing technical things, you must be technical in your choice of words. If you consider that splitting hairs, then fine - you should do so as well when discussing science.

But I see that we have already a conflict over the definition of conclusion, since you have taken conclusion to mean that explanation which is arrived at based on empirical evidence.

That is what conclusion means within the scientific process.

Let me insert the word 'explanation' in place of 'conclusion'. I was questioning the reason behind using one explanation over another one in the absence of empirical evidence for either of them, simply on the basis of one being potentially testable, and the other one not.

If the system you are using demands that conclusions or explanations be testable, then it would be completely unreasonable not to take the testability of your explanation into account.

What you are suggesting is that we not throw out the notion that 2+3=8, because it is not reasonable to throw out something that is against the rules of mathematics.

But the idea that 'natural causes did it' is also an idea. It has not been proven.

Of course it hasn't. But it has been supported.

All the empirical evidence that we have uncovered can be interpreted as being either designed or caused by natural causes (well, more or less, in some cases there may well be a good deal of hand waving, perhaps on both sides of the debate).

Within a system which demands testability, the only interpretation that can be used is one which is testable.

So we are still where we started, not able to rule out either God or natural causes.

And since we weren't trying to do either (something you claimed to understand), we have no problem. No one within science is trying to rule out either. They are simply looking at the evidence and trying to create an explanation that fits within the scientific method.

I am not criticising the scientific method,

If you are trying to include an assumption that God exists (or that a creator of some sort exists, when talking about ID) - a completely untestable assumption - into a scientific theory, you are criticising the scientific method.

Perhaps you could see it that way. I prefer to see God as the origin of reason,

And human reason is the ultimate? If God exists, would God's reason not be more correct than that of humans?

and that it would be an honour to Him that we consider Him reasonable.

This is like saying, "We like the color purple, therefore it would be an honor to God if we considered him purple."

That he does things that are outside of our ability to reason is a very good possibility, but to say that he does silly things would hardly be honouring Him now, would it.

These two statements are completely incompatible. If God does things that are outside of our ability to reason, then we cannot claim that anything God might do is silly - it is simply outside our ability to reason, so it seems silly to us. What you are basically saying is, "We can't understand God, but we can understand that the things we consider silly are things that God wouldn't do - so we can understand God."

I'm not sure that I completely understand that last statement, but if I do, then I think you are implying that there is no specified requirements for life (which would be wrong).

Nope, I didn't say anything even resembling that. Try again.

Still not sure if I understand you right. But directed evolution is the idea of life having to fulfill a certain set of restrictions, if I understand it right.

Incorrect. Directed evolution is, "The evolutionary process is such that there is no way that anything could have evolved differently. The process was meant to create humans as we know them. It was meant to create bacteria as we know them. All of the mutations that led up to the development of 4 blood types were meant to cause 4 blood types."

[snip]
Micro-evolution would be changes within a species such as adapting to new diseases, AIDS adapting to new treatments...

With respect, you miss one point there - the fact that AIDs exists now, and didn't in the past. So, unless it is a divine plague (which I don't think any sensible person would claim) then it had to come from somewhere.

[snip]
Macro-evolution would of course then be changing from one species into another. The fossil evidence can not support this type of change as more than two supposed "stages" of development can be found in the same strata. Further stages in a row can not be found close to each other and often are on seperate continents being inconsistent with time frame and continental drift time lines. The sudden exsistance of complex life forms also fails to support the Millions of yesr that would have been required to change form a single celled organism into complex lifeforms.

Good night see you in a couple of days?

I think your mistake is that you have not grasped how evolution works. When any populations are seperated by an effective barrier you will start to get genetic divergance. Leave the population apart for long enough and even if the barrier comes down then there will be little if any interbreeding even though the populations may then inhabit the same area. So, for some long time the two "species" coexist, until something happens that favours one rather than the other.

In many cases there can appear to be long gaps in the fossile record. These are cause by the fact that very few bones get fossilized, so if the population is small then you have few fossiles and the chance of finding them is very small. Its not that the fossiles are not there - they almost certainly are. But it is a fact that we cannot dig up every last seam of rock to find them all.

An interesting addition to the discussion:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/06/evolution.trial.ap/index.html

Early drafts of a student biology text contained references to creationism before they were replaced with the term "intelligent design," a witness testified Wednesday......

Forrest outlined a chart of how many times the term "creation" was mentioned in the early drafts versus how many times the term "design" was mentioned in the published edition.

"They are virtually synonymous," she said.

And they like to claim ID as an idea apart from Creationism...

Granted, a single textbook doesn't speak for all of its proponents, but this is the one suggested to be used. In the school district in question, it is listed as the direct reference students can refer to to learn about ID.

:sniper: Monotheism kills braincells... :mp5:

:sniper: Monotheism kills braincells... :mp5:

How? :mp5: :sniper:

A reference to God is not the same as pushing a religious view. Since ID postulates that a designer is present, it would be rather silly to write a book about ID while ensuring that there is no mention of God. A man is allowed to write the book from his point of view, and given that he is a Christian, why should he not mention God. An IDer who was a Jew may just as well mention replace God with G--d.


So which is it? The ID camp says we are not promoting God and yet they mention him.

If they were promoting an "intelligent designer" then why not only call it that?

As to a Jew? Well the only ones I ever hear fighting for this especially in the courts are Christians well and one moonie.


As for arguing the case for ID, in reading Dembski's articles, I have found hardly any references to why Darwin was wrong.


I was talking the link you provided.


Black Forrest, do you claim to have an objective view on this debate?

Absolutely. Give me proof and I will change my stance. Show me a credible hypothesis to even suggest the Intelligent Designer and I will join your cause.

I got that impression because of the following. I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I'm sure you'll agree you kind of give the impression.

EDIT: I just realized I can't even read... So sorry about that. I hope I managed to make you laugh instead... Ooops.

Not sure, I've got myself a bit confused now. If you want please feel free to ask the question again and I'll try to answer :)

I'm aware some have tried. I don't remember if you were amongst them, but I'll take your word for it.

Whatever, it doesn't mean she is wrong.

You may have noticed I've corrected a couple of wrong statements from the anti-ID side, I tend to be a little pedantic at times. However, in some areas she is so wrong that he posts give the ID side too much amunition to aim at the Science side.

A nice example would be the gravity these last many posts have gravitated about. We thought we knew, and yet it turns out we were wrong.

No, we were not wrong. That is the whole point.

Why did we discover our mistake? Because theories (or laws as it were) aren't set in stone. Sure, all our theories are formulated to exmlain precisely how things work & why, but it doesn't mean there's no possibility they're wrong. It just means it's incredibly unlikely. There is a staggeringly huge difference.

In reality it isn't. When you have proven theories which fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, supporting each other while standing independent in their own rights, then you have a model which you can't consider as anything but proven.

The entire scientific community would most likely grind to a halt, if all current theories were infallible.
Hopefully one day that won't be the case, but that day hasn't come yet.

Well, physics and astonomy may grind to a halt, but most other sciences would carry on.

I remember on physicist (sorry, can't remember who) being asked at a seminar a few years ago "when we crack the Unified Theory will you be out of of a job?" To which he answered "I do hope so."

Quite right. And you won't hear me arguing that divinity exists outside the minds of certain unfortunate individuals either... But!
The lack of need and evidence for something, doesn't automatically bar the possibility of it. Sure, I'm convinced no gods exists. But objectively I can't make the claim that gods can't/don't exist. It's like saying The Pink Unicorn or The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. How would you prove such a statement? Just because it's completely unreasonable, doen't mean it's completely impossible.

One of two things have happened. Either thos "god" being has spent the last 15,000,000,000 years covering his tracks, or he never existed in the first place. Of course, it is far easier to accept his non-existance and take the lack of evidence as proof he was never there.

By the way, welcome to the weird world of philosophy. This is why science & religion doesn't mix.

I'm just gonna backpedal a bit here...

I didn't mean "your" as in "your personal". I meant claims like BAAWA's claim that the divine cannot possibly exist. Or that scientific theories are 100% infallible certainties.

Well, I know that some science is 100% certain, and I know that there has been no credible evidence brought forth for the existance of a god. Am I 100% certain god does not exist? Yes, I am. An omnipotant being cannot exist in our universe withoiut breaking the laws od science. As I'm confident those laws cannot be broken I'm certain that no god (in the sense of an devine, omnipotant creator of the universe) does not exist.

As already stated, I simply can't remember whether you were amongst the people making such claims. Too many pages, and too many posters with names beginning with a B. Sorry about that.

Oh I agree, far to many pages.

Heh, I'm afraid I'll break my monitor if I try.

That's ok, it is rare I drink these days as I do so much driving.

Now, just what is it about humans that can be tested to see if they were descended from monkeys? Genetic evidence? The high level of homology between humans and monkeys? As has been already pointed out, this homology cannot be made to rule out the humans-made-by-God conclusion, because it is easily explained. That makes some people frustrated, I know, because they feel that God can be invoked to explain anything. I disagree, and think that unfair. I maintain that if God is used to explain something, there must be rules. That God made the world with fossils already present would be breaking a rule. This is an unreasonable explanation for fossils. Neither is it necessary for the human-made-by-God conclusion. That God made humans genes similar to monkey genes is not breaking the rules, because it is a reasonable conclusion. Both monkeys and humans have a lot in common, in terms of metabolism, age, immune systems, nervous systems, etc. The homology is explained by being designed to fulfill a similar purpose.


APES! not monkeys. We do not have much in common with monkeys DNA wise.

How do you test for Gods envolvment or non-envolvment?

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

You may have noticed I've corrected a couple of wrong statements from the anti-ID side, I tend to be a little pedantic at times. However, in some areas she is so wrong that he posts give the ID side too much amunition to aim at the Science side.

The scientific method itself gives the ID side ammunition? Pointing out that the scientific method cannot posit anything other than what is measurable and therefore inside the universe somehow gives the IDers ammunition to claim that science can posit a designer outside the universe?

I'm not sure how that happens..... It would be like saying that me saying, "Human beings do not have the capacity to fly," would support the argument that humans can fly.

No, we were not wrong. That is the whole point.

You're right. Nothing accepted in science was ever wrong. Nothing at all. That's why no theory in science has ever been altered in the least. We have never changed anything at all about our view of gravity. We didn't discover that certain aspects were not being taken into account and move to the theory of relativity instead. Nope, none of that happened.

In reality it isn't. When you have proven theories which fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, supporting each other while standing independent in their own rights, then you have a model which you can't consider as anything but proven.

You are still missing the difference between, "Consider as proven," and "Is proven." We assume these things to be true because they have enough backing to do so and we wish to progress to further details. However, if we were to obtain evidence to the contrary, we would be bound by the very principles of the scientific process to reexamine the theory and to change it.

Once upon a time, it was held as a "proven" fact that atoms were indivisible. The models constructed by physicists were dependent upon this "fact." However, that "fact", like all other portions of science, was still open to being disproven. When we found evidence of smaller particles - ie. electrons, neutrons, and protons - the theory that atoms were indivisible was thrown out and the theory was altered to meet current data - in that a new model of the atom and therefore the structure of matter was created.

By your logic, we should have said, 'If we change the model of the fundamental unit of matter - the atom, then our entire model of matter falls apart. Therefore, no matter what evidence we get, we shouldn't change it." I'm sorry, but that isn't how science works. This is not religious fundamentalist - which is exactly how you describe it - it is science.

Well, physics and astonomy may grind to a halt, but most other sciences would carry on.

According to you, physics is the *only* science.

One of two things have happened. Either thos "god" being has spent the last 15,000,000,000 years covering his tracks, or he never existed in the first place.

Or god(s) exist in such a way that you cannot sense them and therefore they do not need to cover their tracks. Or they have not covered their tracks at all, but you have interpreted those tracks as being something else. Or they have not covered their tracks, but have only revealed their presence to certain people. Or .... or..... or....

Of course, it is far easier to accept his non-existance and take the lack of evidence as proof he was never there.

Perhaps, but it is illogical. Absence of evidence cannot logically be used as evidence of absence.

Well, I know that some science is 100% certain,

Once upon a time, people knew that atoms were 100% certain to be indivisible. They were wrong. Luckily, the scientists didn't claim 100% certainty and were able to recognize the evidence to the contrary when it arose.

Am I 100% certain god does not exist? Yes, I am.

Then you are making an illogical statement which you cannot back up any more than someone who says they are 100% certain god does exist. Any person making a positive statement and claiming it as fact must be able to back it up. But you have no evidence, as absence of evidence is not the same thing as absence of evidence. Thus, your decision to state with absolute certainty that there is no god is no better or worse than someone stating with equal certainty that there is.

An omnipotant being cannot exist in our universe withoiut breaking the laws od science.

It can't exist at all (inside or outside) the universe without breaking the laws of science - as the laws of science are, in fact, the laws of the universe. The very definition of an omnipotent being would be one not bound by these laws.

As I'm confident those laws cannot be broken

Personal opinion, not objective fact.

:sniper: Monotheism kills braincells... :mp5:

Funny, there are a lot of Jewish (and Christian for that matter) Nobel Lauriates out there. :rolleyes:

Funny, there are a lot of Jewish (and Christian for that matter) Nobel Lauriates out there. :rolleyes:

To be expected, to get on in life they had to conform. This is one of the sad things about the USA - you cannot get on in a lot of fields unless you go to church on Sunday.

At least in Europe, and especially in the UK, that idea is now dead.

To be expected, to get on in life they had to conform. This is one of the sad things about the USA - you cannot get on in a lot of fields unless you go to church on Sunday.

At least in Europe, and especially in the UK, that idea is now dead.
Yeah, in the UK of GB & NI it has always been a case of who you know, not what you know, and what private school tie you wear.

To be expected, to get on in life they had to conform. This is one of the sad things about the USA - you cannot get on in a lot of fields unless you go to church on Sunday.

At least in Europe, and especially in the UK, that idea is now dead.

While it may be true for various political or social positions, it is absolutely rediculous for the sciences. There are many, many big name American sciencetists who did not attend church on Sunday: Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Linus Pauling. I know that at the college and universities I attended, there were a good chunck of non-believers and I never heard them complain about being descriminated against. Of course, I went to no-affiliated colleges and it would be different at Bob Jones University.

I'd probably discriminate too if I knew they accepted theology as science.
Bob Jones, what the hell?

Bob Jones isn't an accredited university, for that very reason.

To be expected, to get on in life they had to conform.

Ah yes, because it is completely impossible for a scientist to have personal beliefs - you know, to be human. You have listed some of your own personal beliefs here. The theist scientists' beliefs are no more or less important to him than yours are to you.

Even today, when so many people have an expectation that a scientist is an atheist, the vast majority of scientists are, in fact, religious in some respect. At the very highest estimate, no more than 14% of scientists have been said to be atheists. Most religiosity studies have actually placed the percentage between 1 and 5% - the same as the percentage in the general public.

This is one of the sad things about the USA - you cannot get on in a lot of fields unless you go to church on Sunday.

Yeah, those fields are called, "Christian preachers and youth leaders." Pretty much everyone else can get along just fine without going to church on Sunday. In fact, most religious people don't go to church on Sunday. Religiosity studies reveal that a very large proportion of theists don't go to church at all - or only attend very occasionally.

Yeah, those fields are called, "Christian preachers and youth leaders." Pretty much everyone else can get along just fine without going to church on Sunday. In fact, most religious people don't go to church on Sunday. Religiosity studies reveal that a very large proportion of theists don't go to church at all - or only attend very occasionally.

To be honest, it is hard to get into politics in many places without at least paying lip service to Christianity. The last non-Trinitarian in the White House was Taft and the vast number of congresspeople are the "accepted" religions of Christianity or Judism.

To be honest, it is hard to get into politics in many places without at least paying lip service to Christianity.

This is true, and shouldn't be. Luckily, it is being seen less and less these days. A person's religion should have no place in whether or not they are a good representative of the people, as their religion should have no place in the government.

Of course, "paying lip service to Christianity" and "going to church every Sunday," can be two very different things - although they sometimes go hand in hand.

Actually, I can go back even further. The first English Settlers in America were Puritans and Quakers, Christian Men. Both settled in America to escape Religious persecution, and if Christianity didn't exist, niether would those settlers, and Christopher Columbus would never have discovered North America. Therefore, you, me, and anyone else with direct connections to America would not exist.


I want what you're smoking .....

I think you guys are missing the point. Just because they are teaching ID does not mean they are going to withdraw all of the other things that you take for granted as being correct from the science curriculum.

Science is a subject in which the whole point is to have a questioning and enquiring mind. Just accepting things because they have been taught to you may enable you to pass the course but it is not science. You are not supposed to accept the things you are taught as, to use the term "God given truth" but a true scientist wants you to pull what they say to bits and make something new out of it.

Science is a subject that deals with the natural.

The supernatural has no place in a science class. To introduce religion into a science class is detrimental to a childs education.

Yeah, in the UK of GB & NI it has always been a case of who you know, not what you know, and what private school tie you wear.

That is true in some areas of business and certainly in the civil service. But it has never really been true in science.

I and others have looked at the real evidence without hypothesis blocking what is actually there and agree that there is evidence of Micro-evolution but none supporting Macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution would be changes within a species such as adapting to new diseases, AIDS adapting to new treatments... This is limited to changes that can improve the species without changing it into another species.
Well actually no, changes need not be beneficial. Of course micro evolution is limited to non-speciation change, because that's the whole purpose of having the phrase 'micro-evolution', to differentiate from larger scale evolution.

The is boundless evidence of this in the world but is not evidence of a larger scale of evolution.
There's evidence of macro evolution.

Many of the "stages" in the Human evolution if done up without the added, and unproven existance of, hair over so much of the body would not draw second glances walking down the streets of any city today (lol particulairly in England lol -- JOKE I appologize to you buggers accross the pond)
Right, but what about those that would draw numerous glances not to mention outright stares?

Macro-evolution would of course then be changing from one species into another.
Well yes, but of course species, just like micro and macro evolution is a concept concieved by human beings.

The fossil evidence can not support this type of change as more than two supposed "stages" of development can be found in the same strata.
I can only gather you are assuming that one 'stage' must evolve into another with the 'previous stage' ceasing to exist when that occurs. I dont believe there is any reason to make such an assumption.

Further stages in a row can not be found close to each other and often are on seperate continents being inconsistent with time frame and continental drift time lines.
Really, you'd have to be more specific..

The sudden exsistance of complex life forms also fails to support the Millions of yesr that would have been required to change form a single celled organism into complex lifeforms.
What sudden existence? How could we possibly know how sudden or otherwise the appearance of complex life forms was?

I'm fairly certain no one who we can discuss it with was around at the time, and so far as I know no 'comtemporary' of the appearance of complex life left a journal or videotape documenting the occurance.... ;)

What sudden existence? How could we possibly know how sudden or otherwise the appearance of complex life forms was?

I'm fairly certain no one who we can discuss it with was around at the time, and so far as I know no 'comtemporary' of the appearance of complex life left a journal or videotape documenting the occurance.... ;)


I think he is refering to the precambrian explosion. In the space of a few million years life went from a few jellyfish representing all complex life to every single phyla we see now.


Now to answer his question...this is EXACTLY what you would expect from a non0-directed evolution.

Let me clarify....when you take a product designed by man and compare it with somthing created with an evolution algarithim...non-directed development, at the end of both proceses the product is essentially the same. The difference between evolution and intelligent design is simply the priorities. Intelligence prioritizes features. When we create something wedo it to acheive some goal. Evolution prioritizes stability. The more stable a system the more it will impact the next run. So when you compare the to processes in say software, evolution will never crash but it won't be very interesting until the very end. ID will have all the bells and whistles right off but will crash and burn consently until near the end.


Now apply this to life. We see life sitting around for billions of years. We see a gradual increase in complexity then when everything is in place evolution creates advanced life.

If it were ID we would see one phyla created at a time as it was "needed."


Now personally I beleive god created the universe and all life. But he did so using evolution. I think there were only a few spots he steped in and directed evolution...mainly the creation of us.

However all that aside, what really matters is not who created the universe but how we interact with it. It doesn't make a difference if life was created with ID or if god doesn't exist. ID should NEVER be in a biology classroom. Our children need to learn how to deal with the world as it is not how philosophy says it might be and evolution in biology is how it is.

Alright: reposting stances, as mincing words with BAAWA is becoming both annoying, time-consuming, and remarkably inane.


Religion belongs in religion/philosophy classes. Science belongs in science classes. ID is mentionable in a science class, but distinctions should be made quite clearly, so there is NO confusion. ID belongs mostly in philosophy classes.

Creationism is a possibility.

Creationism and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive.

Creationism and the BB concept are NOT mutually exclusive.

Creationism is/can be supplemental to both.

None of the above are proven nor can be proven by science. Creationism, thus far, cannot be supported by science at all.


Actually, I can go back even further. The first English Settlers in America were Puritans and Quakers, Christian Men. Both settled in America to escape Religious persecution, and if Christianity didn't exist, niether would those settlers, and Christopher Columbus would never have discovered North America. Therefore, you, me, and anyone else with direct connections to America would not exist.

I want what you're smoking .....

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Belator is right. Christianity has had a PROFOUND influence on world history. Think Constantine, the old Catholic church. Crusades. The world map would be divided very differenly. I'll bet a disunified Europe wouldn't have stood against an Arab (Turks...or whoever) invasion as it did. Of course, these conjectures are untestable, but any number of things could've happened quite differently. Even within individuals. If it wasn't for Darwin, when would evolution's testing have begun? Where would science be now? Physics, education? Basically, Belator just isn't looking at the right time zone. If Christianity had never existed, you don't look back a few hundred years for effects, you look back a thousand or two. There's simply too much that would've been different to make any useful guess.


This is one of the sad things about the USA - you cannot get on in a lot of fields unless you go to church on Sunday.

Pffft. I've never seen anything remotely resembling this. I did see once that a student leader in my high school was embarrassed to say the pledge for public events, since he remained silent during the "under God" part. This didn't stop him, and nobody objected to him saying it as such. Of course, you did live during the whole communism fiasco, right? It's understandable to be a little angsty after that.

And Dem is quite right, very few people who label themselves as theists go to church, but that's not your point; you're saying that you have to be Christian. In politics, it helps, since a huge portion of liberal and conservative Americans identify themselves as Christians. This, unfortunately, affects their voting in itself. However, this is nothing special; a very poor percentage of voters have a clue about the candidates they're voting for. At least they're not flipping a coin or voting by party. Just look at the democratic primaries. Worst. Primary. Ever. Good candidates were removed because...I don't know...Iowa democrats like the name "Kerry"? That was lame. And Clark and Edwards should have pooled votes! *is bitter* :p

Anyways, I don't wanna help with the digression of this thread.


Christianity/Creationism/ID should be allowed in any school, but NOT (I repeat, NOT!!) in a science class! At most, a reference to ID while studying the Big Bang, etc. Philosophy/History/Religion, it's all good until it becomes a Sunday school (dominates the class with practical Christianity), which should only be allowed as an unsubsidized extracurricular activity, like a Bible study. None of these classes can be required without alternatives, and a school cannot be required to make these courses normally available. I think everyone's happy, except the fundamentalists/"militant"s, obviously. BTW, quotes from the Bible do not count as support for religion in textbooks. Unless it's John 3:16, etc., obviously.

The more I think about "allowed in High School", the more ridiculous it sounds. You're telling me I can take a course in Gourmet Foods or Philosophy, but not in Religion? Bah. Just keep it out of science.

No, I'm going by your own words. Continuing to lie won't help you.
[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]I have asked you several times for an actual quote that says any of the things you have claimed I have said.
I've done so.



Oh, but it is. So sorry.
Not to an actual scientist.
Yes, to an actual scientist. Otherwise, you're just special pleading and using a No True Scotsman fallacy.



Nothing is ever 100% proven.
Exactly the point I have been making. So why exactly have you been arguing with me?
Because you've been claiming that I've been claiming that things can be 100% proven!



I've read them; there is no dispute. You've yet to show any dispute.I have listed off several of the disputes.
No, you actually didn't.


Are you claiming that there is not discussion over whether or not time is discrete or continuous?
Not insofar as this continuum goes, no.



So--what does any word mean apart from the referent point of the universe? Can you tell me?
A word means what it means, period.
Unsupported assertion.

What does any word mean apart from the referent point of the universe?



No, you've given me what it means within the universe. What does it mean apart from the universe? Would you like to pick up the clue phone? I've given you what the word means.
Within the universe. But not apart from the universe.


As the definition itself implies nothing about inside or outside the universe,
Yes it does.



I'm fairly certain that constantly lying is considered flamebait, so do watch your step.
And yet I have not told a single lie.
But you have.

Basically, the conversation has gone like this:

Me: Words have meaning only within the universe.
You: You're just arrogant to believe that! You must be open to everything!
Me: So what does something mean apart from the universe?
You: YOU'RE ARROGANT
Me: Ummmm....what does something mean apart from the universe?
You: It means what it means.
Me: And you know this how?
You: Because I say it does!
Me: Ok, and that really tells me nothing. What is the onto-epistemic framework that you're using?
You: YOU'RE ARROGANT!




But you do claim that "existence" has meaning apart from the universe (a positive claim).
No, I don't.
But you do, since you said it means the same as within. Ergo.....



No, you do not. You simply take off the logical limits and think that you can freewheel it, when you can't.
You mean the logical limits that you are placing there but are not inherent in the definition?
I have placed nothing in the definition that isn't already inherent thereto.



Your wishes don't mean a damned thing, and you're substituting your wish that words mean things apart from the referent of the universe with the fact that it is those referents which provide the meaning.
Human beings provide the meaning of words. The universe itself is simply where human beings reside.
The universe has the referents. Without the referents--how can words have any meaning? Words are shortcuts to something. A stand-in. That only happens in the onto-epistemic framework within the universe.

Unless, of course, you can show me the onto-epistemic framework of "apart from the universe".

And yes, you have brought your wishes into it, because you're claiming that words have meaning apart from their referents!



That's a positive claim. You should demonstrate the veracity of your claim.
That claim is simple linguistics.
No, the claim requires an onto-epistemic framework. So provide it for me.



I am being civil.
Yes, repeatedly making false accusations and insults is perfectly civil.
I've done neither.



Yes, you have. You've made up a definition for existence apart from the universe.
I haven't made up any defintion.
Yes you have. You've applied the onto-epistemic framework of within the universe to apart from it, and you have no valid reason to do so! Ergo, you're just making it up.




Oh, so you only go by whatever definition suits you at the moment. How convenient for you!
I hate to break it to you,
I hate to break it to you, but you are special pleading.



No, I've shown it.
Simply making a statement over and over again does not demonstrate it to be true.
And lying about me not demonstrating it does not show that I haven't.



Yes. Really.

My dear, you have a lot to learn about the scientific method.
Are you attempting to claim that, should we find evidence in the future that space and time are not curved, we would have to throw out the theory and come up with a new one that explained the new data?
And why would we find evidence that space and time aren't curved, given the massive amount of data that says it is?

Remember: doubt must arise contextually.

You an I, my friend, are perhaps similar in objective.

However, what you are doing here, is helping nobody.

You are flaming, certainly
No, I'm not. I'm being quite civil.


.. flamebaiting, probably... you are certainly not treating your opponent with the respect she deserves.
She deserves respect? News to me.


Dempublicents would probably be well within her rights to take you before moderation, PURELY, on the vitriol in THIS one post.
There was no vitriol, though.


Trust me, if Dempublicents had wanted to, she'd have taken you to pieces by now.
I highly doubt that.

BAWAA tone it down a little dude.
Tone what down?


Many of your comments are one liners which tend to get labeled a trolling.
They are one-liners because that is all that is necessary.


Demp is on our side of this debate,
Were she, she'd understand that she can't steal the concept and get away with it.

Look I came out of a Christian High School and I haven't suffered for it at all,

I am 15 years old, have already graduated with a 3.97 GPA from a Christian High School and am Currently attending a University with a 3.79 GPA in College, I have already got my AS in Computer Science as well

Admittadly, I'm not arguing that Universities should be made to accept students that they dont want to.

Personally I took two science classes, one that taught what most of the United States was taught and one that had a view opposing different theories that the school (and myself) disagreed with.

Due to the fact that I took the class they wanted me to take, I had no problem.

The final point is, no it is not discrimination to disallow students from attending a college when the class that they have taken, no matter how true or acceptable it may be to the High School, if that class is not what the requirements for being accepted to that college are.

However it is discrimination to disallow students who have taken both classes. (Along with this I would like to mention now that I have yet to see a case of this)

Perhaps I can help in one part of this discussion (at least, I'm going to try).

The definition of our being is not dependent upon being within the universe --just the opposite.
No, it's dependent upon the ontological framework that is the universe.


The definition of within universe is dependent upon our being. Consciousness is the ontological basis for our existence.
Oh, you're confusing basis qua living, conscious being with basis qua basis. There's your problem.

And frankly, the ontological basis for our existence is still the universe itself. The nature of being is simply that: to be. To exist. Kant, for all his dual-realmist crap, even alluded to it in his annihilation of Anselm by pointing out that existence is a raw fact, and not a predicate.

I think he is refering to the precambrian explosion. In the space of a few million years life went from a few jellyfish representing all complex life to every single phyla we see now.

That might be a sensible guess...

I suppose we all have different ways of looking at things, personally I wouldnt (as if your theory is correct the earlier poster did) usually refer to 500-800 million years as sudden (even given the context of the billions of preceeding years), nor would I consider it to not be supportive of 'millions of years'...I can only gather that the 'millions of years that would be needed' referred to by the earlier poster is some even more mind-bogglingly huge time span that 500-800 million years... :confused:

No, I'm going by your own words. Continuing to lie won't help you.

Pointless flaming. After this post, I will no longer reply to anything that you do not substantiate - and I will reply to nothing that is flaming.

Yes, to an actual scientist. Otherwise, you're just special pleading and using a No True Scotsman fallacy.

A true scientist is defined by following the scientific method. A person can call themselves a scientist, but they are only a scientist if they follow the scientific method. The method itself works by diproving or supporting hypotheses.

Because you've been claiming that I've been claiming that things can be 100% proven!

If you say, "It is impossible for X to happen," you are making a claim of 100% certainty. If you say, "I believe it is impossible for X to happen," or "It is improbably for X to happen," you are not. The first is what you said.

Basically, the conversation has gone like this:

Me: Words have meaning only within the universe.
You: You're just arrogant to believe that! You must be open to everything!

And you call me a liar? You cannot point to a single quote in which I have said anything even remotely close to this. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that to believe something is not arrogant. It is to claim it as an absolute fact that is arrogant - and you agreed with me when you said that nothing can be 100% proven.

I've done neither.

You mean you haven't called me a liar for stating my point? Funny, anyone else reading the thread would say otherwise.

And lying about me not demonstrating it does not show that I haven't.

If you have demonstrated it, you should be able to point to the post in which you have done so. Every time I have asked you for a specific post to back up your claims of what I have said or your claims for what you say you have proven, you have refused to do so and instead just said, "I ALREADY DID!"

And why would we find evidence that space and time aren't curved, given the massive amount of data that says it is?

Why did we find that Newton's Laws were actually incorrect - leaving out considerations - given the massive amount of data that said they were universal? Why did we find that atoms are, in fact, divisible, given the massive amount of data that led to the theory that they were indivisible? For both of these, at the time of their dominance, all gathered evidence was consistent with the theories. Eventually, we found evidence that they were incorrect, and we changed the theories.

That is how science works.

We may never find evidence that says space and time aren't curved - in which case it would continue to be the top theory. However, space and time are not curved, we will most likely find evidence of this. Thus, the theory will have to be changed.

Remember: doubt must arise contextually.

If you remove all possibility of doubt, then no context will cause doubt to arise.

Personally I took two science classes, one that taught what most of the United States was taught and one that had a view opposing different theories that the school (and myself) disagreed with.

If those "theories" had any religion included, then they are not scientific theories, and you only had one science class, as only science can be taught within a science class.

However it is discrimination to disallow students who have taken both classes. (Along with this I would like to mention now that I have yet to see a case of this)

If a student has taken both classes, they have still been presented with a completely inaccurate view of what science is. If we taught two history classes, one in which the Holocaust was included and one in which it was claimed to have never happened, would we say that those students have a good grasp of history? If we taught two math classes, one in which 2+2=4 and one in wihch all numbers added up to 3, 7, or 12 and no numbers at all could be said to add up to any combination of three 6's in a row, would we consider them proficient in mathematics?

I'm being quite civil.

you [BAAWA] are certainly not treating your opponent with the respect she deserves.

She deserves respect? News to me.

Well, then. I think we've heard quite enough on that issue. Dem was respectful, BAAWA was not. BAAWA, I have seen little from you besides the use of ad hominem attacks among various other propaganda techniques. Perhaps a solid explanation of your ideas will prove (to everyone) that you really have something to say. I'll view an answer to this question without prejudice against you due to your prior posts. Riddle me this. (I'll stick to ontology, which seems to be your preferred field.)


Oh, you're confusing basis qua living, conscious being with basis qua basis. There's your problem.

And frankly, the ontological basis for our existence is still the universe itself. The nature of being is simply that: to be. To exist.

Saying "the nature of being is simply that: to be. To exist," tells us nothing. We already know what "to be" and "to exist" mean. We "are" every day of our lives. We experience things defined as "being" every moment of our lives. "To be" obviously means "to be." Would you say that the definition of universe is "everything that has being (including space/vaccuum, of course)"?

What you ARE saying is that our existence is based in the "universe" and has no meaning without the context of the "universe" (there is no "outside" to the universe, as that would mean nonexistence by definition). However, what we are not told is what consists of "the universe" as you use the term in your ontology. For your point to have any meaning to people other than yourself, this definition is crucial (there is no possibility of useful discussion of your view without this definition). Define "universe" as you use it in ontology.

No, I'm not. I'm being quite civil.


I posted plenty of evidence that says otherwise - which worries me... since that means you must believe that what you have been doing, falls under the definition of 'civility'.


She deserves respect? News to me.


Everyone deserves respect, my friend.


There was no vitriol, though.


No? It seemed somewhat vitriolic to the casual observer... and, to be honest, if you are offending people like me (who are basically on YOUR side), then there might be SOMETHING about your demeanour worth examining, no?


I highly doubt that.

Doubt away. But, if you are wise, you will FEAR Dempublicents. Fear really IS the beginning of wisdom, my friend... and though I have an entirely different 'belief' structure to hers, I have nothing but respect for her debate ability.

Trust me, my friend... the kitten you have been wrestling so far, is a Tiger 'playing nice'.

She deserves respect? News to me.
Therein lies your problem: a lack of self-awareness, and rudeness.

She deserves respect? News to me.

Less of that. Consider that an official warning.

Look I came out of a Christian High School and I haven't suffered for it at all,

With respect, you are not in a position to evaluate that.

I am 15 years old, have already graduated with a 3.97 GPA from a Christian High School and am Currently attending a University with a 3.79 GPA in College, I have already got my AS in Computer Science as well

Admittadly, I'm not arguing that Universities should be made to accept students that they dont want to.

Personally I took two science classes, one that taught what most of the United States was taught and one that had a view opposing different theories that the school (and myself) disagreed with.

Again, with the deepest of respect, at the age you were when you started (what I assume was a science class that included ID & creation) you were not old enough to to make a choice.

Due to the fact that I took the class they wanted me to take, I had no problem.

However, from the sound of it, you didn't learn from that class.

The final point is, no it is not discrimination to disallow students from attending a college when the class that they have taken, no matter how true or acceptable it may be to the High School, if that class is not what the requirements for being accepted to that college are.

However it is discrimination to disallow students who have taken both classes. (Along with this I would like to mention now that I have yet to see a case of this)

If someone has been "educated" with false information, even though they were also given the correct information at the same or seperate times, then their education is flawed. A flawed education must be treated as suspect by the university. In my opinion such students should be required to attend remedial classes to ensure they do understand the difference between the fairy stories of ID/religion and the reality of science.

Are you disadvantaged by having gone to a religious school? Almost certainly. Some of your valuable time, time that is always in short supply in schools, has been wasted. Time that would have better been spent teaching you real science rather than mumbo-jumbo.

Exactly,.... That is, "random" may or may not exist. (Take the random number generator used in programs.... none are actually "random"; just using extremely complex equations to create a sense of "randomness").... Chaos Theory "..chaos theory deals with the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that (under certain conditions) exhibit the phenomenon known as chaos, most famously characterised by sensitivity to initial conditions. As a result of this sensitivity, the observed behavior of physical systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, even though the model of the system is 'deterministic' in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters..." IOW, any sufficiently complex system will have so many factors so as to make the result (being unable to account accurately for the whole), seem random... Though it is in fact ordered... Even shuffling an ordered deck, exactly, returns a "pattern"... and thus makes such illusions in-fact "ordered" (1,27,2,28,3,29,4,30...26,52).. reshuffling just applying the same pattern.... Effectively, with control of the shuffling, you could track the cards to create any "pattern" you wish...

Given the same initial conditions, shuffling the deck with the same start, maintaining the same conditions during shuffling (and all variables) will return the same result....

Interesting. So you are basically saying that randomness is another way of saying 'way too complicated to predict'. That would make sense, since we know that the laws of nature that govern the precise location of a rain drop hitting the earth are not random, just very complex, so that when we say that raindrops hit the earth randomly, they are actually not random events, just way too complicated to predict with a high degree of accuracy, say, within a centimeter.

However, using the word 'randomness' does not always mean this. Let me give an example of a bomb blast in a cafe (a horrible example, I know, but, being Australian, I have been thinking about Bali lately--thus it has been on my mind). The people sitting in the cafe have been distributed around before the blast occurred. We might call the distribution of people in the cafe random, but actually, they aren't. Most people decide where they sit according to their personal preferences (cooler, warmer, not too close to others, not too far away from others, the view, etc.). Thus their distribution is not random. But from the perspective of who is most affected (physically) by the bomb blast, those closest to the bomb will generally be more damaged. Thus the damage is not a random thing, since it generally follows the laws of nature also. However, the use of the word random, in this sense, implies that the bomb blast was not capable of damaging the tourists more than the locals. It is indiscriminate. It follows the laws of nature, and is thus not random, but cannot distinguish between the colour of one's skin or their culture, etc., and is thus indiscriminate.

Now take this to apply to evolution. When people use the word 'randomness', what they often mean is 'indiscriminate'. A mutational event cannot distinguish between an exon and an intron, until you bring natural selection into effect. The laws that govern a mutational event are mostly known, but predicting the exact location of such a mutation is so complicated that we generally consider it as random. However, it is not. It is simply indiscriminate.

Less of that. Consider that an official warning.

In what way could his post have even remotely been considered the subject of a formal warning????

Interesting. So you are basically saying that randomness is another way of saying 'way too complicated to predict'. That would make sense, since we know that the laws of nature that govern the precise location of a rain drop hitting the earth are not random, just very complex, so that when we say that raindrops hit the earth randomly, they are actually not random events, just way too complicated to predict with a high degree of accuracy, say, within a centimeter.

However, using the word 'randomness' does not always mean this. Let me give an example of a bomb blast in a cafe (a horrible example, I know, but, being Australian, I have been thinking about Bali lately--thus it has been on my mind). The people sitting in the cafe have been distributed around before the blast occurred. We might call the distribution of people in the cafe random, but actually, they aren't. Most people decide where they sit according to their personal preferences (cooler, warmer, not too close to others, not too far away from others, the view, etc.). Thus their distribution is not random. But from the perspective of who is most affected (physically) by the bomb blast, those closest to the bomb will generally be more damaged. Thus the damage is not a random thing, since it generally follows the laws of nature also. However, the use of the word random, in this sense, implies that the bomb blast was not capable of damaging the tourists more than the locals. It is indiscriminate. It follows the laws of nature, and is thus not random, but cannot distinguish between the colour of one's skin or their culture, etc., and is thus indiscriminate.

Now take this to apply to evolution. When people use the word 'randomness', what they often mean is 'indiscriminate'. A mutational event cannot distinguish between an exon and an intron, until you bring natural selection into effect. The laws that govern a mutational event are mostly known, but predicting the exact location of such a mutation is so complicated that we generally consider it as random. However, it is not. It is simply indiscriminate.

Ah, someone else who doesnt believe in free will.

Anyway, Tekania replied to a post by dem on the subject of creationists calculations of the probability of evolution. If what you say is true and everything is indiscriminate rather than random then these calculations are useless because the probability will always be 1.

Anyone who makes that assumption when applying the scientific method is not applying the scientific method, as it does not allow for such untestable assumptions.

So, now that we are agreed, perhaps you may like to take back your assumption that I was lying. That would be jolly decent of you.


Positing a natural cause for something because the measurements you have taken point to such a cause does not necessitate an assumption that the supernatural was not involved. It simply necessitates the lack of an assumption that the supernatural was involved.


Agreed once again. My point was that there are some scientists who e.g. study human evolution based on the assumption that humans evolved. They cannot prove that humans evolved, and the evidence that they do have can also be reinterpreted through supernatural causes. They can neither observe nor demonstrate human evolution, and yet there is a whole discipline based on this assumption. Obviously, based on what you have said, you would also have a problem with this, no?


If my experiments point to the idea that a particular genetic pathway causes a morphological feature in a cell, I may posit that the gene at the beginning of that pathway is the cause of the feature. I am not assuming that God doesn't somehow interfere with the workings of the cell. I am, however, looking at the evidence which suggests that the gene is involved. I would then make predictions based upon that. For instance, I might posit that a cell with that gene knocked out would not have the particular feature. If this prediction is found to be correct, I will have given support to the idea that the gene in question does cause the feature I was seeing. However, I still hvae made no assumption that God is not involved. God could be directing the workings of the gene, or determining in which cells the feature will appear. Thing is, I can't measure God, so I posit nothing at all about God either way.


That is most likely my approach also, but you are not really addressing my point.


When discussing technical things, you must be technical in your choice of words. If you consider that splitting hairs, then fine - you should do so as well when discussing science.


Although it is nicer to debate with someone who is a bit quicker to pick up on a semantical problem rather than assumes their opponent is lying, or stupid.


That is what conclusion means within the scientific process.


OK, fine, lets use this definition, then.


If the system you are using demands that conclusions or explanations be testable, then it would be completely unreasonable not to take the testability of your explanation into account.

What you are suggesting is that we not throw out the notion that 2+3=8, because it is not reasonable to throw out something that is against the rules of mathematics.


Now, this is really not right at all. According to your analogy, invoking the supernatural to explain humans would be like saying 2+3=8, while invoking natural causes would be more like 2+6=8. Firstly, why would it be more logical to invoke natural causes? And then, when I look at the post you constructed, my first impulse was to turn it around, and say that it looks like the naturalists are trying to say that 1+1=8, while the creationists are saying 1+x=8. What you seem to be saying is that we should prefer the 1+1=8 over the 1+x=8 because we can at least potentially test it. I say that we should go ahead, and test it if we can find a way, but to throw out the x factor because we appear to not have a way of testing it is not reasonable. Studies on human evolution does have its merits (incidentally, given the amount of time they have had, I find it mildly surprising that they haven't come up with more evidence for the evolution of man than what they supposedly have). But I believe that ID also has its merits, for if it finds a way of demonstrating how humans could not have evolved, then this must be taken into account. If they can do this, how is that breaking the rules of the scientific method?


Of course it hasn't. But it has been supported.


Do you mean 'supported' in a way that some research supposedly supports eating chocolate as beneficial for your health? Support can be found for just about anything.


Within a system which demands testability, the only interpretation that can be used is one which is testable.


I would word that a little differently. Within a system which demands testability, the only interpretation that can be TESTED is one which is testable.


And since we weren't trying to do either (something you claimed to understand), we have no problem. No one within science is trying to rule out either. They are simply looking at the evidence and trying to create an explanation that fits within the scientific method.


Here you go again, assuming that I am criticising the scientific method, instead of criticising the philosophy that some people have who use the scientific method based on their philosophy.


If you are trying to include an assumption that God exists (or that a creator of some sort exists, when talking about ID) - a completely untestable assumption - into a scientific theory, you are criticising the scientific method.


Every point of view rests on assumptions. The scientific method cannot be carried out by people without a point of view, simply because there are no such people available. Within the scientific method, there exists a process whereby people speculate, based on the evidence they have uncovered. They try to fit the evidence in with their understanding of the world and how it came to be, in other words, their world view. This sort of speculation is what fills our text books, our TV screens, magazines, newspapers, school classes, etc.


And human reason is the ultimate? If God exists, would God's reason not be more correct than that of humans?


Of course. I never said anything about human reason being ultimate or more correct than God's. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?


This is like saying, "We like the color purple, therefore it would be an honor to God if we considered him purple."


No its not. Its like saying that we can rule out that God would do something because he was motivated by selfishness or delighting in the confusion of others because he likes to see them suffer. It's like saying that God is very wise and kind and sensible, so that gives us good reason for speculation based on such characteristics. That sort of reasoning would honour Him, I feel.


These two statements are completely incompatible. If God does things that are outside of our ability to reason, then we cannot claim that anything God might do is silly - it is simply outside our ability to reason, so it seems silly to us. What you are basically saying is, "We can't understand God, but we can understand that the things we consider silly are things that God wouldn't do - so we can understand God."


Like I said before, God is motivated by good motives, completely good. Therefore, we would expect that everything that he does or has done to be consistent with that. When we find things that do not appear to be consistent, we must not only ask the question (again) is he good, but also, is this example of his reasoning being above ours. I have never said that we cannot understand God. We can understand some things, as they are found in the universe. We can understand that if He placed the stars in the sky, he must be incredible big and powerful. And if he designed that atom, he is obviously capable of understanding the details. Furthermore, we can say that God would not have made a world full of fossils so that one day some humans would come along and get totally misled by them. We cannot prove this, but we can make the assumption based on reason, and the assumption that God is reasonable (he had to be to create the universe).




Incorrect. Directed evolution is, "The evolutionary process is such that there is no way that anything could have evolved differently. The process was meant to create humans as we know them. It was meant to create bacteria as we know them. All of the mutations that led up to the development of 4 blood types were meant to cause 4 blood types."


I have never read any ID material that puts directed evolution like that. Anybody with half a brain can see that that doesn't work.

and it never ends, this is going to far.

Ah, someone else who doesnt believe in free will.

Anyway, Tekania replied to a post by dem on the subject of creationists calculations of the probability of evolution. If what you say is true and everything is indiscriminate rather than random then these calculations are useless because the probability will always be 1.

gasps, coughs, chokes, finally breathes again.......

Never have I ever believed in the absence of free will. NEVER!!

Aha, but you have not quite seen my point. Mutations are indiscriminate, rather than random. But they are also indiscriminate as applied to the process of evolution. They happen, regardless of an organisms 'need' of a mutation to supply genetic variation. So the calculations may be valid. If you consider a vertebrate, for example, which needs its backbone for survival, one may consider the development of the backbone as a crucial requirement of evolution. Thus, one can study the path of backbone development in the path of an invertebrate to a vertebrate as something that must happen, and thus calculate probability from this.

gasps, coughs, chokes, finally breathes again.......

Never have I ever believed in the absence of free will. NEVER!!

Aha, but you have not quite seen my point. Mutations are indiscriminate, rather than random. But they are also indiscriminate as applied to the process of evolution. They happen, regardless of an organisms 'need' of a mutation to supply genetic variation. So the calculations may be valid. If you consider a vertebrate, for example, which needs its backbone for survival, one may consider the development of the backbone as a crucial requirement of evolution. Thus, one can study the path of backbone development in the path of an invertebrate to a vertebrate as something that must happen, and thus calculate probability from this.

Yeah I didnt think you beleived in the absence of free will, being religous and all but your bomb story couldnt be true with it, people might chose to go to a different cafe on a whim and so you'd never be able to predict it with complete accuracy, but thats another topic.

That vertabrate is exactly what dem was saying about non-directed evolution. The organism doesnt "need" a backbone, it might gradually develop an exoskeleton or something else completely weird to us if we didnt know what was going to happen. There are many possible beneficial characteristis available from just one single mutation so evaluating just one is pointless. Or are you saying our current form of life is the only one possible for the current conditions?

HOLY ****!

60 pages. I left this thing at 17. :eek:

Can't we just let this thing die? I don't like beating a dead horse.

HOLY ****!

60 pages. I left this thing at 17. :eek:

Can't we just let this thing die? I don't like beating a dead horse.

Theres a simple solution.

Dont like the thread? Dont read it.

Of course I didn't read it! 60 pages of arguement over whether or not Creationism should be taught in schools? I like being sane, thank you. I am just wondering why this thing hasn't died yet.

And why people just won't stop raising the dead issues back to life.

Of course I didn't read it! 60 pages of arguement over whether or not Creationism should be taught in schools? I like being sane, thank you. I am just wondering why this thing hasn't died yet.

And why people just won't stop raising the dead issues back to life.
No-one expects you to read it all, i certianly havent. What i mean is if you dont want to take part, dont click on the thread, then you have no reason to complain.

And the fact that people post in this thread kind of suggests it isnt dead.

Ah, someone else who doesnt believe in free will.

Anyway, Tekania replied to a post by dem on the subject of creationists calculations of the probability of evolution. If what you say is true and everything is indiscriminate rather than random then these calculations are useless because the probability will always be 1.

In a sense the probability (if accounting for all [EVERY SINGLE, NO EXCEPTION]) factors, the probability of ANYTHING occuring as it did is 1...

Randomness appears from lack of capacity to account for all variables in a complex system... Thus "randomness" is a construct of the inferior attempting to wrestle with things past their capacity.

Regardless how "unlikely" an event which already occured in our frame had of happening, the probability of that occurance is, repeating all the exact conditions is 100%.... Thus "chance" has little bearing on whether something occured or not... Though it is fair to apply that to what "may" occur... Given that probability itself is not real, but rather a construct and result of our finite capacity to measure almost (if not) infinitely complex systems... Applying probability AFTER the fact is a pointless endeavor, and only makes for entertainment.

EDIT:
In the sense of "free will" much like improbabilities, it's a false construct. Philosophically and Theologically, the term I use is "free agency".

The will is bound by its nature, and is not ultimately "free". But it does make decisions by its nature, and thus the decisions in a sense are free within the confines of its nature, and thus the agent is free. This is the theological construct and part of the point of Calvinistic Soterology in the Theological world. Calvinism is the Theological version of Chaos Theory in Mathmatics (though it predates it by several centuries)... Everything ultimately occuring (including operations of the will) as the result of predeterminate variables which cannot all be accounted for within the finite...

Yeah I didnt think you beleived in the absence of free will, being religous and all but your bomb story couldnt be true with it, people might chose to go to a different cafe on a whim and so you'd never be able to predict it with complete accuracy, but thats another topic.

But a whim is also an influence from nature, thus considered not random. Complicated, unpredicable, yes, but not random. It has a cause.


That vertabrate is exactly what dem was saying about non-directed evolution. The organism doesnt "need" a backbone, it might gradually develop an exoskeleton or something else completely weird to us if we didnt know what was going to happen. There are many possible beneficial characteristis available from just one single mutation so evaluating just one is pointless. Or are you saying our current form of life is the only one possible for the current conditions?

No, I wouldn't say that the current life form is the only one possible for the current conditions. It may be, but I am not in a position to say with any certainty, i.e. I'm too ignorant. (Personally, I suspect that is isn't, but that is not so relevant here.)

What I was saying before was to look at the development of a vertebrate (from an invertebrate) as a process. What you were arguing against was the process where we look at a species and 'think' that it needs to get a backbone, so we ask ourselves 'which mutations need to occur to give it a backbone'?, and you simply refute it by saying that the species doesn't need a backbone, because it may develop into an insect. What you say is perhaps true, but not relevant to the point. What I am saying is that rather than looking at a particular species, we simply take the position/stage of development of invertebrate and we consider the number of mutations necessary for a backbone to develop, and then we calculate the odds of that happening. This is considering the direction of evolution as required to fulfill a particular requirement, since we understand that the features of a vertebrate are impossible without a backbone. 'Directed' in this sense means that path by which an species must take in order to fulfill certain particular requirements. Of course, a species may take the path of developing into an insect, and we would not rule that out. But that really is another issue.

In a sense the probability (if accounting for all [EVERY SINGLE, NO EXCEPTION]) factors, the probability of ANYTHING occuring as it did is 1...

Randomness appears from lack of capacity to account for all variables in a complex system... Thus "randomness" is a construct of the inferior attempting to wrestle with things past their capacity.

Regardless how "unlikely" an event which already occured in our frame had of happening, the probability of that occurance is, repeating all the exact conditions is 100%.... Thus "chance" has little bearing on whether something occured or not... Though it is fair to apply that to what "may" occur... Given that probability itself is not real, but rather a construct and result of our finite capacity to measure almost (if not) infinitely complex systems... Applying probability AFTER the fact is a pointless endeavor, and only makes for entertainment.

EDIT:
In the sense of "free will" much like improbabilities, it's a false construct. Philosophically and Theologically, the term I use is "free agency".

The will is bound by its nature, and is not ultimately "free". But it does make decisions by its nature, and thus the decisions in a sense are free within the confines of its nature, and thus the agent is free. This is the theological construct and part of the point of Calvinistic Soterology in the Theological world. Calvinism is the Theological version of Chaos Theory in Mathmatics (though it predates it by several centuries)... Everything ultimately occuring (including operations of the will) as the result of predeterminate variables which cannot all be accounted for within the finite...

Yeah, thats what i meant, but you put it more eloquently.

In a sense the probability (if accounting for all [EVERY SINGLE, NO EXCEPTION]) factors, the probability of ANYTHING occuring as it did is 1...

Randomness appears from lack of capacity to account for all variables in a complex system... Thus "randomness" is a construct of the inferior attempting to wrestle with things past their capacity.

Regardless how "unlikely" an event which already occured in our frame had of happening, the probability of that occurance is, repeating all the exact conditions is 100%.... Thus "chance" has little bearing on whether something occured or not... Though it is fair to apply that to what "may" occur... Given that probability itself is not real, but rather a construct and result of our finite capacity to measure almost (if not) infinitely complex systems... Applying probability AFTER the fact is a pointless endeavor, and only makes for entertainment.



The problem with your argument is that we just can't say that e.g, vertebrates developed from invertebrates. Thus we cannot say if it can be repeated. Therefore, the probability is not 100%. So it seems to me that we are back to square to the start. Or did I miss something??

But a whim is also an influence from nature, thus considered not random. Complicated, unpredicable, yes, but not random. It has a cause.



No, I wouldn't say that the current life form is the only one possible for the current conditions. It may be, but I am not in a position to say with any certainty, i.e. I'm too ignorant. (Personally, I suspect that is isn't, but that is not so relevant here.)

What I was saying before was to look at the development of a vertebrate (from an invertebrate) as a process. What you were arguing against was the process where we look at a species and 'think' that it needs to get a backbone, so we ask ourselves 'which mutations need to occur to give it a backbone'?, and you simply refute it by saying that the species doesn't need a backbone, because it may develop into an insect. What you say is perhaps true, but not relevant to the point. What I am saying is that rather than looking at a particular species, we simply take the position/stage of development of invertebrate and we consider the number of mutations necessary for a backbone to develop, and then we calculate the odds of that happening. This is considering the direction of evolution as required to fulfill a particular requirement, since we understand that the features of a vertebrate are impossible without a backbone. 'Directed' in this sense means that path by which an species must take in order to fulfill certain particular requirements. Of course, a species may take the path of developing into an insect, and we would not rule that out. But that really is another issue.

This still doenst get anywhere near the whole picture. If we assume the creature needs a backbone and cant support itslef by any other means (already taking directed evolution) there may be thousands of different variations on the bone with different advantages/disadantages and as many ways to get there through different mutations. To take one of these and calculate the probability is like saying "I picked the 8 of hearts out of a pack of cards! the odds of that happening are only 1/52, that was so unlikely!" after just picking a random card.

edit: and if you're implying the whim came from outside of the person, where is the room for free will?

Interesting. So you are basically saying that randomness is another way of saying 'way too complicated to predict'. That would make sense, since we know that the laws of nature that govern the precise location of a rain drop hitting the earth are not random, just very complex, so that when we say that raindrops hit the earth randomly, they are actually not random events, just way too complicated to predict with a high degree of accuracy, say, within a centimeter.

However, using the word 'randomness' does not always mean this. Let me give an example of a bomb blast in a cafe (a horrible example, I know, but, being Australian, I have been thinking about Bali lately--thus it has been on my mind). The people sitting in the cafe have been distributed around before the blast occurred. We might call the distribution of people in the cafe random, but actually, they aren't. Most people decide where they sit according to their personal preferences (cooler, warmer, not too close to others, not too far away from others, the view, etc.). Thus their distribution is not random. But from the perspective of who is most affected (physically) by the bomb blast, those closest to the bomb will generally be more damaged. Thus the damage is not a random thing, since it generally follows the laws of nature also. However, the use of the word random, in this sense, implies that the bomb blast was not capable of damaging the tourists more than the locals. It is indiscriminate. It follows the laws of nature, and is thus not random, but cannot distinguish between the colour of one's skin or their culture, etc., and is thus indiscriminate.

Now take this to apply to evolution. When people use the word 'randomness', what they often mean is 'indiscriminate'. A mutational event cannot distinguish between an exon and an intron, until you bring natural selection into effect. The laws that govern a mutational event are mostly known, but predicting the exact location of such a mutation is so complicated that we generally consider it as random. However, it is not. It is simply indiscriminate.
For something to be "indiscriminate" it needs an agent of discrimination. The random event is random to an individual observer. From his subjective viewpoint, the event was unpredictable, and therefore random. The deck of cards, face-down, is objectively sorted, but random to its user. The more objective use of the idea of "random" to describe things that are "indiscriminate" gives these events an observer --it hypothesizes that for the imaginary objective observer, the order of events, however complicated, can be determined. The human mind will never be entirely objective; we are rather stuck with these individual, subjective viewpoints. Therefore, however much things really are ordered, randomness will always be there.

So it is OK for them to discriminate not because of academic standards, but because they disagree with the viewpoint of the publisher?

And the next step if ID is allowed is what, religious tolerance? And that is really really bad? To be more tolerant?

:rolleyes:


The problem is not religous tolerance... The problem is that these people want to promote one "creation story" over those of all others. Greeks, Romans, Indians, Native Americans, they all have an idea about creation. However, many "christians" call their beliefs mythology because they don't agree. Teach ID is a compartive culte/religion/philosophy class, it is NOT SCIENCE.

Of course I didn't read it! 60 pages of arguement over whether or not Creationism should be taught in schools? I like being sane, thank you. I am just wondering why this thing hasn't died yet.

And why people just won't stop raising the dead issues back to life.

It is an important issue. I consider the education of our children to be one of the most important issue there is. We must strive to give them the very best of educations and they cannot possibly get that is ID is included in science classes.

In the sense of "free will" much like improbabilities, it's a false construct. Philosophically and Theologically, the term I use is "free agency".

The will is bound by its nature, and is not ultimately "free". But it does make decisions by its nature, and thus the decisions in a sense are free within the confines of its nature, and thus the agent is free. This is the theological construct and part of the point of Calvinistic Soterology in the Theological world. Calvinism is the Theological version of Chaos Theory in Mathmatics (though it predates it by several centuries)... Everything ultimately occuring (including operations of the will) as the result of predeterminate variables which cannot all be accounted for within the finite...
Ahh... I wonder if that where the idea comes from (I have noticed many people promoting this deterministic philosophy that insistis will has a place in it.)

But a whim is also an influence from nature, thus considered not random. Complicated, unpredicable, yes, but not random. It has a cause.
Whatever objective order it might have, it is random in that it is unpredictable to the subjective observer.

Discrimination? Yes.

Wrong? Kinda, at least. I don't totally understand the situation from this blurb of an article, but it seems the University is controlling the school system, including private schools. That's not quite right. UC should set requirements for itself and maybe even public schools. If the Christian schools are private schools, then the courses should fly (duh).

About science. This is a prime example (if I'm seeing this particular one correctly) of non-atheist views being discriminated against in our schools. What should be taught is what is known to be truth. Since we don't know crap, multiple sides need to be shown. I have no problem with either side, and neither should be afraid of the facts. Unfortunately, both are. ID is afraid of being disproved, which is impossible (same with being proven), and BB/Evo is afraid the facts will get out on itself, so it passes off opposition as radical ID support (since there are only two prominent possibilities). The difference is, BB/Evo is currently in power, so it enforces its own views (with positive sanction, negative sanction, and censorship). The other side would flip this if it could (which would be, ironically, un-Christian of it).

Maybe, eventually, we'll realize we're all on the same team and stop concentrating on winning. Jerks.... =P


Basically, this case has a chance, but not much of one in California, with a University against it. BTW, who is Bob Jones, and how did he get HIS own University? Thology =/= science. ID is science-ish. It just has little of what we call "empirical" evidence. ID comes into play when we realize that science cannot answer that question without stepping all over itself.

Lol, Fox is evil? Don't you just mean popular media in general? At least Fox has O'Reilly, which is completely unbiased, by the way... >_> Good show though.

Yeah, O'reilly is so unbiased, and stupid, and racist, and ignorant. Like when he recently claimed the 82nd airborne committed the "Mallady Massacre" which is completely erroneous. I could go one for months with all of the "factual innacurate" facts that Mr. "let me dildo my arse while I make obscene phone calls and then settle for 8 million becauise I'm innocent" has spewed. Faith requires as much as it requires a child to have an imaginary friend. Teach ID in any other class, but it's not science. It is not able to stand up to the scientific method, and therefor not science. Oh, I like how the author of the ID book for kids claims that "dinosaurs and humans once roamed the earth together." Any one jackass who can make this claim to be true, and hope to be taken seriously is delusional. So what are you?

This still doenst get anywhere near the whole picture. If we assume the creature needs a backbone and cant support itslef by any other means (already taking directed evolution) there may be thousands of different variations on the bone with different advantages/disadantages and as many ways to get there through different mutations. To take one of these and calculate the probability is like saying "I picked the 8 of hearts out of a pack of cards! the odds of that happening are only 1/52, that was so unlikely!" after just picking a random card.

edit: and if you're implying the whim came from outside of the person, where is the room for free will?


Nobody is saying that a creature NEEDS a backbone. The whole problem is not approached from that perspective. Thinking about it this way will always be misleading. Nobody is saying that having a backbone is the only way a creature can survive. This is a different issue. Can I say it any clearer than that?

As for taking the card example, it is perfectly normal of picking a single card from a pile, turning it over to find that it is the King of Hearts, and then calculating that the odds of picking that particular card is 1/52, while the odds of having any card is always going to be one (because the card was picked). When we look at life from the perspective of having certain requirements, e.g., it must be red, have a picture of a heart, also have a picture of a king's head, then we have specified what the result must look like.

Or take another example. The locksmith manufactured a lock that can only be opened when a 10 digit number is displayed on the little turny thing (my mind just when blank when trying to think of the name). The locksmith has specified the correct number. So the probability of a thief opening the lock by randomly twiddling the dials and coming up with the exact number is something like 1 in 'insert a very large number'.

Whatever objective order it might have, it is random in that it is unpredictable to the subjective observer.

We were pulling apart the word random to see that it really means 'too complicated to predict', not that it implies that things do not have causes.

Edit: Pleeeeeese do not start that free will/determinism argument again. It doesn't help anyone.

Nobody is saying that a creature NEEDS a backbone. The whole problem is not approached from that perspective. Thinking about it this way will always be misleading. Nobody is saying that having a backbone is the only way a creature can survive. This is a different issue. Can I say it any clearer than that?

Strange, I thought that was exactly what we were talking about.


Aha, but you have not quite seen my point. Mutations are indiscriminate, rather than random. But they are also indiscriminate as applied to the process of evolution. They happen, regardless of an organisms 'need' of a mutation to supply genetic variation. So the calculations may be valid. If you consider a vertebrate, for example, which needs its backbone for survival, one may consider the development of the backbone as a crucial requirement of evolution. Thus, one can study the path of backbone development in the path of an invertebrate to a vertebrate as something that must happen, and thus calculate probability from this.

I dont really see how the rest of the post was relevant. To sum up: creationists' calculations of the likelyhood of evolving in a certain way are flawed. The actual figures they come up with may actually be correct. It was an extremely small chance that life evolved the way it did, but they dont take into account all the other ways life could have evolved and therefore the figures will always be misleading. And they will always be flawed beause i would think that it would be impossible to know every which way life could have evolved withou dying off.

edit:wrong bit bolded

Strange, I thought that was exactly what we were talking about.



I dont really see how the rest of the post was relevant. To sum up: creationists' calculations of the likelyhood of evolving in a certain way are flawed. The actual figures they come up with may actually be correct. It was an extremely small chance that life evolved the way it did, but they dont take into account all the other ways life could have evolved and therefore the figures will always be misleading. And they will always be flawed beause i would think that it would be impossible to know every which way life could have evolved withou dying off.

edit:wrong bit bolded


A vertebrate needs a backbone, but not all creatures need one. I suppose I could have pointed that out before, but I thought it was rather obvious.

The answer to not taking into account all the other ways that life could have evolved is that life would have if it could have, but because it didn't, it can't have. I'm not sure that I agree with that totally, but I would say that it is mostly right, although we cannot know for sure. There are obviously many life forms that have become extinct, and that we cannot ever detect them now. But, if evolution were true, one would expect that every life form that was possible had a 'chance', but only the most successful survived.

The problem with your argument is that we just can't say that e.g, vertebrates developed from invertebrates. Thus we cannot say if it can be repeated. Therefore, the probability is not 100%. So it seems to me that we are back to square to the start. Or did I miss something??

No, we may not (given we cannot account for all data) know for certain the exact path whereby vertibrate evolved from invertibrates... Though we can make reasonable extrapolations of available data to ascertain the events which could occur...

This has little to do with proof of past events, so much as the idea of the concept of complexity itself. That is, the events and variables which determine the development of an invertbrate to a vertibrate, if repeated with all such accounted for, would occur exactly the same. Though, it is not directly feasible to do so, as we lack the capacity to account for all variables. (Which is what differs Chaos Theory from absolute Fatalism)... Things are determined based on variable criteria, and the criteria determines the "fate", but the "fate" itself is unknown and unknowable unless you can account for all of the variables... From our POV, the certainty does not appear 100% (but this is due to the complex system, and our inability to account for all factors)... Thus, no experiment will appear with 100% accuracy... However, all variables do lead to the completion of the event, accordingly... Thus while everything is determinative (that is, based upon the variable events); the exact event, due to incapacity, is not exactly predictable... Thus probability of predicting an occurance is never 100%... But this is due to lack of capacity to account for the entire system, not that the occurance was actually "random" in the literal sense... But as put before "indiscriminate"...

We can say, based on objective evidence, that there is a path there, and appears to be some evolutionary connection whereby invertibrates evolved into vertibrates..... But you're correct, no one can be absolutely certain about the event, we can only approach by degrees of certaintly for any even in particular, unless we could literally account for all factors and variables in the system.

But science, itself, is not about "certainty" it's about measuring and categorizing evidence, and formulating and testing hypothesis derived from that evidence, whereby "Certainty" can be approached.

I believe Doyle got this right.... "When all other possibilities are ruled out, what-ever remains... however unlikely must be the truth"... Probability has no bearing on truth.... Doyle, the Scientific Method and Chaos Theory agree on this... It's not about "likelyhood".... It's "Did it occur or not..." and is there evidence supporting this hypothesis... As soon as one invokes a probability to attempt to refute evidence; they have violated proper method... Because probability, has no bearing on the event.... If you release an apple, and it "falls" upward, regardless of how unlikely the event is... You MUST account such as evidence as part of the hypothesis...

This is very similar to the concept of arguing the improbability of benefitial mutation by equation... We see beneficial mutations change aspects of special groups, and therefore know they exist... Since no equation can account 100% for the probabilities involved (lacking all variables necessitate to prediction), the improbability itself, is improbable to predict from complexity... The important thing is the factual evidence, and not the probabilities equated for its occurance... Probability itself is not evidence... An essence of Chaos...

*ultra snip*

Thanks Tekania, that covers it all. I'm leaving this thread for now.

Probability of an event that occured doesn't have any significance.

Let us consider the following three examples and their fundamental differences:

Example 1: I pick up a coin and am about to toss it. What is the chance of it coming up as tails?

Example 2: I pick up a coin and am about to toss it as many times as it is necessary to get tails. How many tosses will it take?

Example 3: I picked up the coin and tossed it, it came up as tails. What is the chance of that happening?

Now the answers:

1. The chance of getting tails is roughly 50%
2. Well, theoretically inifinite throws.
3. The chance of it happening is 100% as it already has happened.

No, we may not (given we cannot account for all data) know for certain the exact path whereby vertibrate evolved from invertibrates... Though we can make reasonable extrapolations of available data to ascertain the events which could occur...

This has little to do with proof of past events, so much as the idea of the concept of complexity itself. That is, the events and variables which determine the development of an invertbrate to a vertibrate, if repeated with all such accounted for, would occur exactly the same. Though, it is not directly feasible to do so, as we lack the capacity to account for all variables. (Which is what differs Chaos Theory from absolute Fatalism)... Things are determined based on variable criteria, and the criteria determines the "fate", but the "fate" itself is unknown and unknowable unless you can account for all of the variables... From our POV, the certainty does not appear 100% (but this is due to the complex system, and our inability to account for all factors)... Thus, no experiment will appear with 100% accuracy... However, all variables do lead to the completion of the event, accordingly... Thus while everything is determinative (that is, based upon the variable events); the exact event, due to incapacity, is not exactly predictable... Thus probability of predicting an occurance is never 100%... But this is due to lack of capacity to account for the entire system, not that the occurance was actually "random" in the literal sense... But as put before "indiscriminate"...

We can say, based on objective evidence, that there is a path there, and appears to be some evolutionary connection whereby invertibrates evolved into vertibrates..... But you're correct, no one can be absolutely certain about the event, we can only approach by degrees of certaintly for any even in particular, unless we could literally account for all factors and variables in the system.

But science, itself, is not about "certainty" it's about measuring and categorizing evidence, and formulating and testing hypothesis derived from that evidence, whereby "Certainty" can be approached.

I believe Doyle got this right.... "When all other possibilities are ruled out, what-ever remains... however unlikely must be the truth"... Probability has no bearing on truth.... Doyle, the Scientific Method and Chaos Theory agree on this... It's not about "likelyhood".... It's "Did it occur or not..." and is there evidence supporting this hypothesis... As soon as one invokes a probability to attempt to refute evidence; they have violated proper method... Because probability, has no bearing on the event.... If you release an apple, and it "falls" upward, regardless of how unlikely the event is... You MUST account such as evidence as part of the hypothesis...

This is very similar to the concept of arguing the improbability of benefitial mutation by equation... We see beneficial mutations change aspects of special groups, and therefore know they exist... Since no equation can account 100% for the probabilities involved (lacking all variables necessitate to prediction), the improbability itself, is improbable to predict from complexity... The important thing is the factual evidence, and not the probabilities equated for its occurance... Probability itself is not evidence... An essence of Chaos...

Right, I think I followed what you were saying. And I agree. Probability is not evidence in that case. For example, the probability of my winning the lottery is rather low, but even though my friends do not believe me, I did win it. Thus, their citing of rather low odds is not evidence against my winning, because I'm holding the cash in my hand (and my friends are claiming that someone gave me the cash, rather than me winning it).
However, from my friends' point of view, how are they to know if I did win it and am telling the truth, or if I am lying? From where they are standing, they would balance the low odds of my winning against my tendency to lie (or tell the truth). That is the whole problem with this debate. I grant that low probability is not evidence against something happening if it did indeed happen. But therein lies the problem. We are still trying to conclude if evolution did happen. And we cannot demand to see the lottery ticket. Therefore, probabilities, while not proof of something happening, must be taken into account when trying to decide if it did indeed happen.

Probability of an event that occured doesn't have any significance.

Let us consider the following three examples and their fundamental differences:

Example 1: I pick up a coin and am about to toss it. What is the chance of it coming up as tails?

Example 2: I pick up a coin and am about to toss it as many times as it is necessary to get tails. How many tosses will it take?

Example 3: I picked up the coin and tossed it, it came up as tails. What is the chance of that happening?

Now the answers:

1. The chance of getting tails is roughly 50%
2. Well, theoretically inifinite throws.
3. The chance of it happening is 100% as it already has happened.

Welcome to NS!

May I add, though, that I find your point has not provided more light on the subject. Of course, it is probable that my understanding is a little slow, and I am too stupid to understand. It is also probable that your communication skills are somewhat lacking. Since neither you or I are in a position to decide (edit: to know, rather than to decide), we must take the probability of both into account. Thus probability is an important factor when making decisions.

Thus probability is an important factor when making decisions.
Indeed it is.

However consider the following:

I tossed a coin - Care to guess whether it was heads or tails?

I tossed a coin, it came up as tails - Care to guess whether it was heads or tails?

The reason why probabilities usually come up in a discussion about evolution is because from a viewpoint that lies in the beginning of time and/or life the chance of things happening the way they have is astronomically small (or certain, if you're one of those mechanical modelists).

However these things have already happened, thus the probability of me, human, being here typing this message is not near 0% but 100% - Not because God has so predestined but because the course of actions have put me into this position.

I say bring it on, fools. Then you'll get cynical kids like me in the classes that will completely own the Bible-bangers. I mean, I'm taking an Intro to the Old Testament course, and on our first exam that covered Genesis through Kings I got a 91% when the class average was 82%. Most of the class is made of zealots. What's funny is that everyone looks at me funny when I bring up terms they've never heard of, like Lilith, and try to use futile logic when I point out something contradictory about their god, like when he alters Pharoh's free will in the book of Genesis; if it's affected by God, isn't it no longer "free" will?

But yeah, bring it on, America. Teach that class and let the young Antichrists smoke the ignorant urchins.

I say bring it on, fools. Then you'll get cynical kids like me in the classes that will completely own the Bible-bangers. I mean, I'm taking an Intro to the Old Testament course, and on our first exam that covered Genesis through Kings I got a 91% when the class average was 82%. Most of the class is made of zealots. What's funny is that everyone looks at me funny when I bring up terms they've never heard of, like Lilith, and try to use futile logic when I point out something contradictory about their god, like when he alters Pharoh's free will in the book of Genesis; if it's affected by God, isn't it no longer "free" will?

But yeah, bring it on, America. Teach that class and let the young Antichrists smoke the ignorant urchins.
Class average was 82 … wow that class must be a breeze

Indeed it is.

However consider the following:

I tossed a coin - Care to guess whether it was heads or tails?

I tossed a coin, it came up as tails - Care to guess whether it was heads or tails?

The reason why probabilities usually come up in a discussion about evolution is because from a viewpoint that lies in the beginning of time and/or life the chance of things happening the way they have is astronomically small (or certain, if you're one of those mechanical modelists).

However these things have already happened, thus the probability of me, human, being here typing this message is not near 0% but 100% - Not because God has so predestined but because the course of actions have put me into this position.

I see your point, however, I'm still left wondering how that is going to help us decide whether God made life as it is (static) or it all evolved from a single ancestor (or some other option in between). We know that we are, but we don't know how we got here. Because we don't know the answer, the probabilities factor remains an important one.

I say bring it on, fools. Then you'll get cynical kids like me in the classes that will completely own the Bible-bangers. I mean, I'm taking an Intro to the Old Testament course, and on our first exam that covered Genesis through Kings I got a 91% when the class average was 82%. Most of the class is made of zealots. What's funny is that everyone looks at me funny when I bring up terms they've never heard of, like Lilith, and try to use futile logic when I point out something contradictory about their god, like when he alters Pharoh's free will in the book of Genesis; if it's affected by God, isn't it no longer "free" will?

But yeah, bring it on, America. Teach that class and let the young Antichrists smoke the ignorant urchins.

At least you had the choice to be cynical about Christianity and religion. What is wrong with extending the choice to others? You never know, we might get some bright kids who actually are not cynical or who delight in making out that they are smarter than all the others.

Right, I think I followed what you were saying. And I agree. Probability is not evidence in that case. For example, the probability of my winning the lottery is rather low, but even though my friends do not believe me, I did win it. Thus, their citing of rather low odds is not evidence against my winning, because I'm holding the cash in my hand (and my friends are claiming that someone gave me the cash, rather than me winning it).
However, from my friends' point of view, how are they to know if I did win it and am telling the truth, or if I am lying? From where they are standing, they would balance the low odds of my winning against my tendency to lie (or tell the truth). That is the whole problem with this debate. I grant that low probability is not evidence against something happening if it did indeed happen. But therein lies the problem. We are still trying to conclude if evolution did happen. And we cannot demand to see the lottery ticket. Therefore, probabilities, while not proof of something happening, must be taken into account when trying to decide if it did indeed happen.

Well, that's a jump... Actually, probability isn't a factor in the decision at all. But rather empirical evidence (probability is not empirical, unless all data can be accounted for).

The average chance of winning a large lottery is about 1:17,000,000... Because all factors cannot be accounted for to predict the outcome (the system is intentionally complex so as to make predictability, unpredictable)... So, to ascertain whether the event occured, you gather all available evidence... Say you win $1,000,000.00... Now, I can know you didn't have that money before... But if I gather evidence such as, you not having any rich friends or relatives, and there being legitmate tranfers involved, I can rule out someone giving you such money, and can rule out theft, and rule out pre-possession... Regardless how unlikely the "Event" was... It can become factual of the events occurance, merely from evidence (even lacking possession of the ticket)... Regardless of probability... Thus, probability has no bearing on the occurance of the event, and evidence should be used to make determinative assessment as to the event, as opposed to the likelyhood of the event.

This is a "best-fit" analysis... And science, by nature, operates in best-fit... That which best-fits the available criteria is accepted until something is formulated which fits better. (Scientific Error-Correction)... However, such evidence is limited to the empirical (that which can be scientifically measured and categorized), and not conceptual (probability assessment)... Accepted however does not mean the theory exists as any objective "truth", but rather is a subjective proof, accepted from present evidence and study... I also do not think that acceptance == what is to be researched in the mainstream... If you do that, you limit the possibility of newly formulated theories surplanting olders ones, which do not fit as well... But what is taught, academically, is the accepted model (as alternatives can be researched later)...

Now, do not get my wrong... I do believe in God... But as stated before, invoking a belief into science, you pose an untestable hypothesis... Thus it would be "impossible" to rule it out... But science is about "testing" things, into a best-fit scenario... So how can one invoke one, while being able to maintain the experimental nature of ascertaining the processes? It no longer becomes "scientific"... While I sympathize with creationisms of all sorts... Such belongs in the realm of philosophy, and not empirical science... Because the invocation becomes the end of the process itself to understand and ascertain the processes whereby things occur and have occured.

Regardless of your stance, evolution (a process whereby things devlope over time) occurs... And it is now that we attempt to study this process to understand it more... It's not realistically about "origin" (creationism/abiogenesis) but about a process, which itself becomes a tool to understand how things move and change, and predict (with no certainty) where things may go, and to very limited extents, change the course within framework. And continue the with deeper understanding into further connected concepts (Genetics, viriology, etc.)... As long as Genetics and viriology and the like continue being able to use the process (evolution) as a viable guage for their research and path; and no information is gleaned to invalidate the base; you're not going to see a scientific re-evaluation of the base hypothesis of the theory... Because it "best-fits" the available data...

I see your point, however, I'm still left wondering how that is going to help us decide whether God made life as it is (static) or it all evolved from a single ancestor (or some other option in between). We know that we are, but we don't know how we got here. Because we don't know the answer, the probabilities factor remains an important one.I'm merely stating that you can't refute evolution on grounds of the result being unlikely.

My viewpoint on the matter is that (seemingly) ID might or might not exist in some degree, however this would not in anycase need supernatural powers or abilities just unknown effects and effectors: From the viewpoint of science supernatural simply does not exist (if you include certain unmeasurables as natural) - Or in other words: There are unknowns but there's nothing magical, per se, about them.

As for static model? Each being is different and some beings even have evolved or have been made to evolve in relatively short timespan. Thus strict static model simply cannot hold water.

So, now that we are agreed, perhaps you may like to take back your assumption that I was lying.

If that's what you meant to say, it is what you should have said. You should not have said that a common idea in science is the assumption that all things can be explained by natural causes, or the assumption that there is no God - things you have said numerous times.

Agreed once again. My point was that there are some scientists who e.g. study human evolution based on the assumption that humans evolved.

You can only study evolution based on the assumption that it exists. This is like saying, "There are some people who study atoms based on the assumption that atoms exist."

They cannot prove that humans evolved, and the evidence that they do have can also be reinterpreted through supernatural causes.

Those supernatural causes are, by definition, outside of science, and thus cannot be brought into it. Thus, when studying science, the supernatural is irrelevant. If it is necessary, then what you are studying is no longer science.

They can neither observe nor demonstrate human evolution, and yet there is a whole discipline based on this assumption.

There is no discipline based on the assumption that evolution has occurred. There is a discipline known as biology, which assumes that we can study the natural processes of life. Out of this discipline has arisen a theory known as the theory of evolution. Thus far, we have found no evidence inconsistent with this theory - nothing to disprove it - and thus it stands as a valid theory. Because it still stands as a valid theory (just as the theory of relativity stands as a valid theory), calculations and further research are based on the current theory. This will continue until such time as the theory is disproven. If this never occurs, then it will continue forever.

I'm sorry if you don't like it my dear, but that is how science works.

Although it is nicer to debate with someone who is a bit quicker to pick up on a semantical problem rather than assumes their opponent is lying, or stupid.

I have never assumed that you are stupid - ignorant of evolutionary theory perhaps, as you have demonstrated that more than once - but not stupid. I also have never assumed you are lying. Your repeated use of something which is completely incorrect in every one of your posts on this subject is a clear suggestion that you are being intentionally misleading.

Now, this is really not right at all. According to your analogy, invoking the supernatural to explain humans would be like saying 2+3=8,

And it would. Invoking the supernatural is outside the rules of science, just as considering 2+3 to be equal to 8 would be outside the rules of mathematics. The rules of mathematics say that 2+6=8, therefore anyone properly using mathematics must use this in such a calculation. The rules of science say that the supernatural cannot be considered, as it is outside that which science can deal with. Thus, it would be like saying that 2+3=8 - breaking the rules.

Firstly, why would it be more logical to invoke natural causes?

I didn't say anything about logical - I said it was within the rules of the scientific method.


But I believe that ID also has its merits, for if it finds a way of demonstrating how humans could not have evolved, then this must be taken into account. If they can do this, how is that breaking the rules of the scientific method?

If all ID did was demonstrate a mechanism by which humans could have developed in a way other than evolution, it would be within the scientific method. This is not what it does, however. What it says is, "You can't prove that it happened this way. Therefore, it didn't. I believe in a creator, so I'm going to invoke that creator in my science, even though doing so is completely adverse to the scientific method."

Do you mean 'supported' in a way that some research supposedly supports eating chocolate as beneficial for your health?

Eating some chocolate would be beneficial to your health. Eating a lot of it wouldn't be.

Support can be found for just about anything.

Not following the scientific method. If, as the IDers do, you start with a conclusion and then try to find support for it, you are absolutely correct that you can find support for everything. However, this is not what support means within the scientific method. Within the scientific method, support for a theory must be uncontradicted. If there is repeatable evidence that disproves a theory, it is thrown out - and all evidence on hand must not disprove the theory. It isn't a matter of, "Let me find something that backs up my idea." It is a matter of, "Let me find an idea that matches all the available evidence - one that I can test further in the future in case it is wrong."

I would word that a little differently. Within a system which demands testability, the only interpretation that can be TESTED is one which is testable.

.....and therefore is the only interpretation which can be included. If testability is demanded, then one cannot invoke an explanation which cannot be tested.

Here you go again, assuming that I am criticising the scientific method, instead of criticising the philosophy that some people have who use the scientific method based on their philosophy.

If you think ID can be considered part of the scientific method - despite being based completely and totally on an assumption that can never be tested - you are criticizing the scientific method.

Every point of view rests on assumptions.

And, in science, other than the assumption that logic and the scientific method can be used to discover things, all assumptions must be testable. Thus, an assumption that there is a designer that we can't test is not acceptable.

They try to fit the evidence in with their understanding of the world and how it came to be, in other words, their world view.

You have that backwards. That is what most people do. It is what religious fundamentalists do. A scientist tries to fit her understanding of the world and how it came to be with the evidence, not the other way around.

Of course. I never said anything about human reason being ultimate or more correct than God's. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?

Yes, you did. You said that anything that you, as a human being, find silly would necessarily be silly for God to do. In other words, you are saying that you are the arbiter of what is rational to God.

No its not. Its like saying that we can rule out that God would do something because he was motivated by selfishness or delighting in the confusion of others because he likes to see them suffer.

Not really. That leaves much more room for interpretation than, "God wouldn't do anything that I find silly."

Your estimation of what is silly is irrelevant to God. It would be like a cockroach saying, "Wow, those humans are silly because they throw away all of this perfectly good food." Our reasoning for throwing out rotting food is solid to us - but a cockroach, with such a limited viewpoint and understanding, wouldn't really get that.

It's like saying that God is very wise and kind and sensible,

Again, you have not defined wise and sensible here. If you said, "God wouldn't do X, because that isn't wise and sensible," you are using your conception of what is wise and sensible - automatically assuming that what is wise and sensible to God is what you believe it to be.

Like I said before, God is motivated by good motives, completely good. Therefore, we would expect that everything that he does or has done to be consistent with that.

Good is defined by God, is it not? Therefore, something that we think is good may not be, and vice versa.

I have never said that we cannot understand God.

Understanding God would meant that we are at God's level. Are you proposing that we are all gods ourselves?

I have never read any ID material that puts directed evolution like that. Anybody with half a brain can see that that doesn't work.

Every time that they start making probability calculations, they assume this.

claiming UC admissions officials have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution.
dont see where it said that they didnt teach science
just that they didnt like the fact there pet theory was contested

the way i see it if it is a proven fact: teach it and only it (earth round not flat)

if it is a theory: teach them all be it big bang, creation, giant spit ball, what ever the accepted theory's are they should be tought.
if you just teach one you can say discrimination. if you teach all you show tolerance.

dont see where it said that they didnt teach science
just that they didnt like the fact there pet theory was contested

the way i see it if it is a proven fact: teach it and only it (earth round not flat)

if it is a theory: teach them all be it big bang, creation, giant spit ball, what ever the accepted theory's are they should be tought.
if you just teach one you can say discrimination. if you teach all you show tolerance.
While your post is confusing due to its being poorly written, Science classes should be teaching SCIENCE creationism is NOT a SCIENTIFIC theory

Quit being lazy and defining theory “any idea as to the cause” because that is not what a theory is in the context of science or science class

This is a "best-fit" analysis... And science, by nature, operates in best-fit... That which best-fits the available criteria is accepted until something is formulated which fits better. (Scientific Error-Correction)... However, such evidence is limited to the empirical (that which can be scientifically measured and categorized), and not conceptual (probability assessment)... Accepted however does not mean the theory exists as any objective "truth", but rather is a subjective proof, accepted from present evidence and study... I also do not think that acceptance == what is to be researched in the mainstream... If you do that, you limit the possibility of newly formulated theories surplanting olders ones, which do not fit as well... But what is taught, academically, is the accepted model (as alternatives can be researched later)...

But this is exactly what the debate is over. Some are saying that the evidence does not fit in with evolutionary theory. For example, if a witness (Mrs. M) in court was trying to give a false account of how Mr. X murdered Mr. Y (when in reality it was Mr. A who was the murderer), then Mrs. M's story would look like it had holes in it. Some of the story would match the evidence, and some would not. The jury makes their decision based on how well the story matches the evidence.
In the case of the origins of life, I've no doubt that many people are honestly trying to match the evidence to evolutionary theory (rather than giving a false witness as in the example), but the story does have lots of holes in it. Holes do not prove falseness, but they will very frequently follow it. Now, just because evolutionary theory is considered the best scientific way of explaining the origin and diversity of life, in spite of the holes, that doesn't count for two cents with me, since I am interested in the truth, not just the best explanation that we can come up with that only includes natural causes. So would anybody who was in science to discover truth. I don't give a rotten fig for an explanation that sounds good if I don't believe it is the right one. And I don't think I'm the only one. Science is not about finding nice sounding explanations. It is a search for truth in the material world.


Now, do not get my wrong... I do believe in God... But as stated before, invoking a belief into science, you pose an untestable hypothesis... Thus it would be "impossible" to rule it out... But science is about "testing" things, into a best-fit scenario... So how can one invoke one, while being able to maintain the experimental nature of ascertaining the processes? It no longer becomes "scientific"... While I sympathize with creationisms of all sorts... Such belongs in the realm of philosophy, and not empirical science... Because the invocation becomes the end of the process itself to understand and ascertain the processes whereby things occur and have occured.


I agree that science can only deal with processes that it can test. I like that sort of science. But, as I have pointed out before, there are many within science who think that science gives them the evidence to conclude that e.g. all of life arose from a single ancestor. While this is technically a testable argument (since it does not invoke the supernatural) it is not practically testable, since there is no way to test if e.g. eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. We would need a great deal of time to demonstrate or observe it. Millions of years, perhaps. And the more we look at the details that are required for such an evolutionary step, the bigger the holes seem to get. So the conclusion that all of life arose from a single ancestor is not a conclusion from the scientific method, but from philosophy. And thus it finds itself in the same category as creationism.


Regardless of your stance, evolution (a process whereby things devlope over time) occurs... And it is now that we attempt to study this process to understand it more... It's not realistically about "origin" (creationism/abiogenesis) but about a process, which itself becomes a tool to understand how things move and change, and predict (with no certainty) where things may go, and to very limited extents, change the course within framework. And continue the with deeper understanding into further connected concepts (Genetics, viriology, etc.)... As long as Genetics and viriology and the like continue being able to use the process (evolution) as a viable guage for their research and path; and no information is gleaned to invalidate the base; you're not going to see a scientific re-evaluation of the base hypothesis of the theory... Because it "best-fits" the available data...

The best-fits approach that you are referring to is only on the basis of what is testable and what is not (i.e. what is suited to scientific theory) and not on the basis of what is most likely (arguing from a creationist point of view). Thus to throw out the likely explanation and accept a more convenient explanation is not my idea of common sense.

What I would rather see is evolutionary theory universally relegated to a philosophical position, placed alongside any other reasonable philosophic position, and presented so in the classroom.

At least you had the choice to be cynical about Christianity and religion. What is wrong with extending the choice to others? You never know, we might get some bright kids who actually are not cynical or who delight in making out that they are smarter than all the others.

That's the thing; up until a few years ago, I was raised in a strict conservative Catholic household. The Bible was right, no questions asked. I was supposed to learn what they taught me in school, but not believe it. Now I've broken out and become a heathen.

I see your point, however, I'm still left wondering how that is going to help us decide whether God made life as it is (static) or it all evolved from a single ancestor (or some other option in between).

It isn't. If we are asking the question scientifically, then only the empirical evidence will help us determine any such thing. As of right now, the leading theory is evolution. As no evidence has yet been found that contradicts it, it is still a valid theory. Until such time as evidence is found that contradicts it, it will remain a valid theory. Unless an equally scientific theory which explains all available evidence in a scientific method in an equally valid (or more valid) way, it will remain the leading theory.

That, my dear, is how science works.

dont see where it said that they didnt teach science

If ID was being taught, then non-science was being taught. In fact, the book they were using specifically stated, "The Bible is completely and literally true. If science finds anything that contradicts the Bible, or can provide a scientific explanation for anything which God does in the Bible, science is wrong."

The exact quote is posted earlier in the thread.

the way i see it if it is a proven fact: teach it and only it (earth round not flat)

That is not a proven fact, any more than anything else in science is. If we find evidence tomorrow that contradicts the theory that the Earth is round, the theory will have to be discarded and replaced. Depending on the geometry used, the Earth may very well be flat - and Euclidian geometry may be incorrect for use in our universe.

if it is a theory:

In other words, all of science.

teach them all be it big bang, creation, giant spit ball, what ever the accepted theory's are they should be tought.

The only accepted theories in science are scientific theories. Any old idea does not apply.

if you just teach one you can say discrimination. if you teach all you show tolerance.

Discrimination is a necessity in science. We must discriminate between scientific ideas and non-scientific ones. We must discriminate between something that matches the data, and something that does not. Without discrimination, there would be no science.

Meanwhile, here is a homework assignment. Go find a science textbook (not a religious textbook pretending to be a science textbook). Look at the scientific definition of the word theory. Discover that there is nothing in science higher than a theory. Even those few things we call laws are simply theories that have been tested to the point that we are almost certain they are correct. Realize just how silly your comment was.

Dempublicents1,

You are one of the most inteligent and clear posters I've read. Bravo!!

But this is exactly what the debate is over. Some are saying that the evidence does not fit in with evolutionary theory.

And yet have not shown any evidence at all that actually contradicts it. If they did, the theory would either be scrapped or changed to fit reality.

For example, if a witness (Mrs. M) in court was trying to give a false account of how Mr. X murdered Mr. Y (when in reality it was Mr. A who was the murderer), then Mrs. M's story would look like it had holes in it.

No, Mrs. M's story would have contradictions in it. Any story has holes in it, as none of us know everything. Thus, any story we can put together will still have some unanswered questions. However, it is a story which contradicts the evidence at hand that must be thrown out as incorrect.

In the case of the origins of life, I've no doubt that many people are honestly trying to match the evidence to evolutionary theory (rather than giving a false witness as in the example),

Anyone doing this is not following the scientific method, as the scientific method would require that they match evolutionary theory to the evidence, not the other way around.

Now, just because evolutionary theory is considered the best scientific way of explaining the origin and diversity of life, in spite of the holes, that doesn't count for two cents with me, since I am interested in the truth,

You should get out of science then. Science is made up of best explanations. When the old best explanation suddenly doesn't work anymore, a better explanation is created. This happens over and over and over again, moving asymptotically towards the truth. However, by the precepts of the scientific method, even if we found the TRUTH, we wouldn't know we had found it. We would still be charged to keep testing, to keep asking questions.

But, as I have pointed out before, there are many within science who think that science gives them the evidence to conclude that e.g. all of life arose from a single ancestor. While this is technically a testable argument (since it does not invoke the supernatural) it is not practically testable, since there is no way to test if e.g. eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. We would need a great deal of time to demonstrate or observe it. Millions of years, perhaps.

You seem to think that actual replication is the only way to test something. This is a very, very unscientific viewpoint. When looking at a murder scene, we don't have to replicate the murder. We don't have to bring someone in and say, "Murder this person in this way so that we can see if that is how it happened." No, we look at the evidence at hand and, from that, come up with an explanation. We can test our hypotheses. We might hypothesize that someone was stabbed by a right-handed person. We can then examine the evidence - blood spray and wounds - and determine whether they are consistent with that hypothesis. We don't have to bring a right-handed person into the room and have them stab someone.

And the more we look at the details that are required for such an evolutionary step, the bigger the holes seem to get.

The more we question anything, the more questions we find.

So the conclusion that all of life arose from a single ancestor is not a conclusion from the scientific method, but from philosophy.

This doesn't follow. The scientific method does not demand that there are no portions of a theory that are not completely explained. If it did, there would be no theory at all in the entirety of science. It demands that the theory be consistent with all evidence at hand. It is valid, then, until evidence to the contrary is found.

The best-fits approach that you are referring to is only on the basis of what is testable and what is not (i.e. what is suited to scientific theory) and not on the basis of what is most likely (arguing from a creationist point of view).

On what basis do you state that Creation is most likely? If you cannot scientifically demonstrate this basis, then it has no place in science.

Thus to throw out the likely explanation and accept a more convenient explanation is not my idea of common sense.

It has nothing to do with convenience, my dear. Convenience would be to say, "God did it! Ok, good, we're done now, let's get coffee."

Dempublicents1,

You are one of the most inteligent and clear posters I've read. Bravo!!
Incredibly patient, too.

But this is exactly what the debate is over. Some are saying that the evidence does not fit in with evolutionary theory. For example, if a witness (Mrs. M) in court was trying to give a false account of how Mr. X murdered Mr. Y (when in reality it was Mr. A who was the murderer), then Mrs. M's story would look like it had holes in it. Some of the story would match the evidence, and some would not. The jury makes their decision based on how well the story matches the evidence.
In the case of the origins of life, I've no doubt that many people are honestly trying to match the evidence to evolutionary theory (rather than giving a false witness as in the example), but the story does have lots of holes in it. Holes do not prove falseness, but they will very frequently follow it. Now, just because evolutionary theory is considered the best scientific way of explaining the origin and diversity of life, in spite of the holes, that doesn't count for two cents with me, since I am interested in the truth, not just the best explanation that we can come up with that only includes natural causes. So would anybody who was in science to discover truth. I don't give a rotten fig for an explanation that sounds good if I don't believe it is the right one. And I don't think I'm the only one. Science is not about finding nice sounding explanations. It is a search for truth in the material world.

Science is not directly about "finding truth"; it's about viewing evidence and making the best to explain it.

A court is not a very good evaluation. In these terms... The purpose of a court is to take a hypothesis, and then render a verdict on it based on evidence. Science never actuall renders a verdict... Science is more of the Detectives and Criminologists in the background who gather evidence, and create theories which best fit the scenario... Nor about divining ultimate truth.... If you want to divine truth, you need to enter philosophy, and not science...

That being said evidentiary holes, do not matter... It's only, does the model best fit the present evidence....

Unlike a court, whereby reasonable doubt dispells the hypothesis made by the prosecution; reasonable doubt plays no part in the science of the system... Since science (unlike the courts) accept that it cannot account for all factors... And thus, if rendered, could render in error...


I agree that science can only deal with processes that it can test. I like that sort of science. But, as I have pointed out before, there are many within science who think that science gives them the evidence to conclude that e.g. all of life arose from a single ancestor. While this is technically a testable argument (since it does not invoke the supernatural) it is not practically testable, since there is no way to test if e.g. eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. We would need a great deal of time to demonstrate or observe it. Millions of years, perhaps. And the more we look at the details that are required for such an evolutionary step, the bigger the holes seem to get. So the conclusion that all of life arose from a single ancestor is not a conclusion from the scientific method, but from philosophy. And thus it finds itself in the same category as creationism.

No, but this is a best-fit... Evidence exists to indicate such, and the same processes used to indicate such, work elsewhere (in other disciplines such as genetics)... That is, the process, even if it may have unknown factors, and while not completely understood, can be tested to operate within limited constructs; and therefore it is used, because it works... And will be used, till it doesn't, or something comes along which works better.

Once again, divining the ultimate truth is philosophy, not empirical science...


The best-fits approach that you are referring to is only on the basis of what is testable and what is not (i.e. what is suited to scientific theory) and not on the basis of what is most likely (arguing from a creationist point of view). Thus to throw out the likely explanation and accept a more convenient explanation is not my idea of common sense.

Common sense is anything but common... (Philosophical view)

Once again, probability does not matter, because as already shown, operating objectively from Chaos, probability does not exist... It is a figment created by lack of data... Thus, the probability of the improbability being probably accurate, is itself, improbable... Hense why empirical science does not use probability factors as "evidence" to determine process... But rather, extrapolation and study of the hypothetical process, and all other connected processes involved.... You cannot proove, with no shadow of doubt, that your calculation of probability, is itself accurate... But you can proove empirical evidence is accurate...


What I would rather see is evolutionary theory universally relegated to a philosophical position, placed alongside any other reasonable philosophic position, and presented so in the classroom.

Evolutionary theory can be a philosophical position, argued from onesense... But it also exists as an empirical aspect... It is impossible to divide genetics and viriology from it's close connection with evolutionary theory, because both rely on hypothetical and tested applications from the other. So, as long as the theory "works" based on present evidence, it will not go anywhere.

Dempublicents1,

You are one of the most inteligent and clear posters I've read. Bravo!!

Thank you! And now I'll do the silly thing: :fluffle::fluffle: =)

We were pulling apart the word random to see that it really means 'too complicated to predict', not that it implies that things do not have causes.


*blinks* Oh so there is no such thing as random mutations?

Then basically what you suggest is that we abolish the word random since it really doesn't exist?

Hmmmmm

Once again, probability does not matter, because as already shown, operating objectively from Chaos, probability does not exist... It is a figment created by lack of data...
I dispute that on the basis that no one, no thing, within this universe can hold all the facts necessary.

Thus, while probability might (or might not) be illusionary concept to an omniscient being (heh) it is a concept that's very real to any being within this Universe: You cannot predict the future to a point of absolute certainty.

However, considering the past probability has much less significance than people usually give credit for.

Probability of an event that occured doesn't have any significance.

Let us consider the following three examples and their fundamental differences:

Example 1: I pick up a coin and am about to toss it. What is the chance of it coming up as tails?

Example 2: I pick up a coin and am about to toss it as many times as it is necessary to get tails. How many tosses will it take?

Example 3: I picked up the coin and tossed it, it came up as tails. What is the chance of that happening?

Now the answers:

1. The chance of getting tails is roughly 50%
2. Well, theoretically inifinite throws.
3. The chance of it happening is 100% as it already has happened.

I once tossed a coin, bobbled the catch, it bounced and landed on it's side. Well leaning against a wall that is.

So what does that mean? :p

Welcome about BTW.....

I once tossed a coin, bobbled the catch, it bounced and landed on it's side. Well leaning against a wall that is.

So what does that mean? :pI'll be...I mean what was the chance of that happening.. :)
Welcome about BTW.....Well..I've been around for quite a while but haven't exactly been an active poster...or reader.

Once again, probability does not matter, because as already shown, operating objectively from Chaos, probability does not exist... It is a figment created by lack of data... Thus, the probability of the improbability being probably accurate, is itself, improbable... Hense why empirical science does not use probability factors as "evidence" to determine process... But rather, extrapolation and study of the hypothetical process, and all other connected processes involved.... You cannot proove, with no shadow of doubt, that your calculation of probability, is itself accurate... But you can proove empirical evidence is accurate...
But... the subjective viewpoint also exists, therefore probability also exists.

I dispute that on the basis that no one, no thing, within this universe can hold all the facts necessary.

Thus, while probability might (or might not) be illusionary concept to an omniscient being (heh) it is a concept that's very real to any being within this Universe: You cannot predict the future to a point of absolute certainty.

However, considering the past probability has much less significance than people usually give credit for.

Since no one, no thing, within this universe can hold all the facts necessary => No one can calculate an actual probability..... They can only make a probable ascertion upon what the probability may be, with no probable certainty...

Thus, why probability is not empirical evidence. And why probability has no bearing on acertaining the process... Since you have to know the entire process, to even calculate probabilities in it.

In the end, why abandon a process which is testable, and which fits the evidence, and observations best, at this point, in multiple disciplines; for a process and hypothesis which cannot even be tested....

"Creationsim" effectively, does not exist in science.... Because it adopts and accepts views in an unscientific manner... Not to say it CANNOT BE CORRECT, in the absolute philosophical sense... Science cannot be used, or involved with even creating a test of correctness for it...

The culmination of the first two steps of the method, is formulation of a proovable (that is falsifiable) hypothesis, based on observation and evidence.... Evolution meats this criteria.... Creationism does not... It invokes and UNPROOVABLE hypothesis.... It's the equivalent of invoking invisible blue pixies, to explain gravity. Could the hypothesis, in the ultimate philosophical sense be true? Yes... Can it be prooven? No... Can it be disprooven? No...

Can Creationism be, in the ultimate philosopphical sense, true? Yes... Could it be prooven? No... Could it be disprooven? No...

Can Evolution be, in the ultimate philosophical sense, true? Yes... Could it be prooven? Yes... Could it be disprooven? Yes...

If the hypothesis cannot answer yes to the above three questions; then it does not get into scientific study.... Study requires testing, with no testable hypothesis, there IS NO SCIENTIFIC STUDY...

Can Evolution be, in the ultimate philosophical sense, true? Yes... Could it be prooven? Yes... Could it be disprooven? Yes...

If you are using the word proven as a logical opposite to the word disproven, then the answer to the second question (at least within science) is actually no. Science can determine nothing with 100% certainty - as everything is still open to the possibility of being disproven. Now, if by "prove", you mean, "support with enough evidence that we can be close to 100% certain that it is true," then you are correct.

Since no one, no thing, within this universe can hold all the facts necessary => No one can calculate an actual probability..... They can only make a probable ascertion upon what the probability may be, with no probable certainty...Which is the point probability: You don't get actual result you just get a hint of as what could occur and how likely each result is.

Thus, why probability is not empirical evidence. And why probability has no bearing on acertaining the process... Since you have to know the entire process, to even calculate probabilities in it.Probability is not evidence.

Counting probabilities gives only bearing to what might happen. It does not effect things that have already happened nor does it account for surprises.

Can it be prooven? No... Can it be disprooven? No...Are you saying that invisible, massless blue pixies could not be responsible for gravity?

It could be proven and it could be disproven too: If someone found out a damn tiny blue pixie then we'd have proof, if someone found the mediator particle then the Blue Pixie theory would go down the toilet.

However no self respecting scientist would propose such an outrageous theory because it doesn't even begin to satisfy Occam's Razor nor is there any proof, hints, that Blue Pixies indeed are the reason for gravity.

Science can determine nothing with 100% certainty
Of course it can.

eg. 1 + 1 = 2

What science can't do is depict reality with 100% accuracy because of the inherent structure of the Universe.

Of course it can.

eg. 1 + 1 = 2

What science can't do is depict reality with 100% accuracy because of the inherent structure of the Universe.

Not according to Quantum Mechanics...

Besides, thats math.

Of course it can.

eg. 1 + 1 = 2

That isn't science, my dear. That is mathematics. And 1+1=2 because we have defined 1 and 2 such that this is true.

In the realm of science, which relies on experimentation - the next experiment could always produce different results. The theory with the most backing could always be contradicted with new research.


What science can't do is depict reality with 100% accuracy because of the inherent structure of the Universe.

The inability of science to reach 100% certainty has nothing to do with the structure of the universe - and everything to do with the logical construct known as the scientific method - which works by disproving things, not by proving them.

To prove something with 100% certainty, you would have to know everything possible about it, and whether or not any evidence, ever, will contradict it. Do you claim to know that?

Not according to Quantum Mechanics...QM is all about probabilities, not certainties.
Besides, thats math.
Maths is very much a science.

It's a subset of logics..or vice versa: The very tools of science.

That isn't science, my dear. That is mathematics. And 1+1=2 because we have defined 1 and 2 such that this is true.I knew you would pull the symbols trick, however, the idea behind the symbols remains true: 1 + 1 = 2, | + | = ||, etc..

And mathematics is very much a science.
In the realm of science, which relies on experimentation - the next experiment could always produce different results. The theory with the most backing could always be contradicted with new research.You seem to limit science as purely empirical exploration, such is not the case.

The inability of science to reach 100% certainty has nothing to do with the structure of the universe - and everything to do with the logical construct known as the scientific method - which works by disproving things, not by proving them.I agree partly, however, the fundamental difference is that I think that science can be entirely correct, especially on a theoretical level.

However when you apply a product of science to real world you usually run into problems because of the great number of unknown variables that defy accurate description, the limitations of measuring devices and even the entire structure of the Universe which will ultimately defy actual measurements. To prove something with 100% certainty, you would have to know everything possible about it, and whether or not any evidence, ever, will contradict it. Do you claim to know that?Depends on what you mean.

I can say that humans need to breathe under normal circumstances, I could even go into great lengths about oxygen's use in body and what would extended lack of oxygen lead into. I can say this with 100% certainty.

However, I could not explain exactly how oxygen reacts or causes reactions in a human body.

That isn't science, my dear. That is mathematics. And 1+1=2 because we have defined 1 and 2 such that this is true.

<Snip>

To prove something with 100% certainty, you would have to know everything possible about it, and whether or not any evidence, ever, will contradict it. Do you claim to know that?
Wow, I think this is the first time I've seen you post something I disagree with, Demp.

Mathematics is the basis of most science. The reason we can know maths with certainty, is of course that we have defined it. You can say that maths isn't (usually) the basis of science theories, but saying that it's not science is wildly inaccurate in my humble opinion. But that's all I disagree with.

It's interesting with this certainty thing everyone seem to be so confused about. Why is it so hard to grasp?
Uhm, anyway, speaking of certainties, the - in my opinion - really interesting thing about quantum mechanics, is the current implication that absolutes may not exist. I have a feeling I'm as fond of that idea as Christians are of their God :D

Of course it can.

eg. 1 + 1 = 2

What science can't do is depict reality with 100% accuracy because of the inherent structure of the Universe.

That's math, and while science has some reliance on math, science =/= mathmatics.

1+1=2 no more prooves evolution (or creation) than it prooves:

t' = (to - ((x*v)/(c^2))) / ((1 - ((v^2)/(c^2)))^(-2))

That's math, and while science has some reliance on math, science =/= mathmatics.
Never claimed that...I'm stating that mathematics is a science.

The reason we can know maths with certainty, is of course that we have defined it.Have we? Or have we just discovered it ;)

btw. this is a philosophical question)
btw2. is philosophy a science? Why? Why not?

Have we? Or have we just discovered it ;)

btw. this is a philosophical question)
btw2. is philosophy a science? Why? Why not?
Philosophy studies beliefs, science studies empirical phenomenon.

Of course it can.

eg. 1 + 1 = 2

What science can't do is depict reality with 100% accuracy because of the inherent structure of the Universe.
Maths is not science. Maths manipulates symbols to derive conclusions; science studies empirical evidence, not symbolic.

While "the inherent structure of the Universe", whatever that may be, may be an uncertainty, that is not the main reason why science cannot depict reality with 100% accuracy. The main reason is that scientists are biological lifeforms limited to unique perspectives on the world, and objective reality can only ever be abstract for them.

Have we? Or have we just discovered it ;)

btw. this is a philosophical question)
btw2. is philosophy a science? Why? Why not?

Is Philosophy a science? Yes.. (So is theology, and sociology, and infact, Politics can be a science too)...

However, you have what is known as "hard-science" (empirical) and "soft-science" (non-empirical). "Science" as an academic adventure, is used to group "hard-science" (empirical science) together [Example: Physics, Biology, Chemistry]... Most Soft-Science exists either in the framework of it's own discpline (Theology), or in the framework of another (Political Science/Sociology, are grouped into "Social Studies", or Social Sciences; and Computer Science exists as part of Mathmatics)...

So, when dealing with acadamia... "Science Curriculum" == "Hard-Science" empirical science studies, (Sometimes called Laboratory Science)...

While a prequisit to Physics 100 series may be Trignometry and Algebra II, and for 200 series may be Calculus... They do not "teach" math in Physics... And Physics is not going to teach Philosophy.... Nor should biology.... Nor should in opposition one teaching the other... Because, while they all may rely on the same "method" of study, they all have different realms and disciplines of venture.

Credits in Theology and Philosophy, do not gain explicit points towards a degree in the Phyisical Sciences); Completing a Physics program, does not make one an expert in the Philosophical sciences or sociology...

Philosophy studies beliefs, science studies empirical phenomenon.
This is a nice, catchy, claim, however it is inaccurate.

Science is not limited to directly empirical phenomena nor philosophy just to beliefs.
While a prequisit to Physics 100 series may be Trignometry and Algebra II, and for 200 series may be Calculus... They do not "teach" math in Physics... And Physics is not going to teach Philosophy.... Nor should biology.... Nor should in opposition one teaching the other... Because, while they all may rely on the same "method" of study, they all have different realms and disciplines of venture.
I disagree...philosophy should always be teached, especially in relation to science.

Scientific Method itself arose from what we would call nowadays the philosophy of science: Theoretical ideas what science should represent, what would make science independent of beliefs....and more importantly nowadays: What are the consequences of a discovery?

Maths is not science. Maths manipulates symbols to derive conclusions; science studies empirical evidence, not symbolic.
Very noble, very outdated.

While biology, chemistry and other softer sciences usually deal with empircal evidence modern physics relies on purely theoretical foundation which might, or might not, be proven empirically in the future.

And mathematics is still very much a science: It is formed by observation, hypotheses and experiments.

The main reason is that scientists are biological lifeforms limited to unique perspectives on the world, and objective reality can only ever be abstract for them.That is a philosophical viewpoint. :P

Besides, we can create machines that do it all faster, better and more accurately.

That is a philosophical viewpoint. :P
It is. :)

Besides, we can create machines that do it all faster, better and more accurately.
But not 100%. ;)

And mathematics is very much a science.

No, it isn't. Mathematics is not bound by the scientific method, and is thus not a science.

Now, mathematics is a form of logic, as is the scientific method. They are not, however, interchangeable.

You seem to limit science as purely empirical exploration, such is not the case.

Actually, it is the case. Anything which cannot be empirically tested and measured is not science. It may be logical, it may be mathematic, it may be philosophical, but it is not science.

I agree partly, however, the fundamental difference is that I think that science can be entirely correct, especially on a theoretical level.

How exactly do you prove with 100% certainty that your next measurement will not reveal a new process you did not yet know of?

I can say that humans need to breathe under normal circumstances, I could even go into great lengths about oxygen's use in body and what would extended lack of oxygen lead into. I can say this with 100% certainty.

Can you? Can you say with 100% certainty that no human will ever go into a chamber with no oxygen and survive? Have you tried it the infinite times necessary to be 100% certain?

However, I could not explain exactly how oxygen reacts or causes reactions in a human body.

Then you cannot be 100% certain that it does so at all. You can point out the evidence that suggests that lack of oxygen causes problems. You can point out the pathways which seem to use it. But if you cannot explain it exactly, with no error whatsoever, with an infallible mind, then you cannot claim that it is necessary with 100% certainty. In 1000 years, we might find a condition under which human cells run along just fine without oxygen, as we might find that what appeared to a dependence upon oxygen was actually a dependence upon another factor that oxygen happens to affect - making oxygen itself unnecessary.

Now, is this likely to happen? Of course not. With all the evidence backing the idea that human cells need oxygen (and a rather specific concentration of it at that), it is very unlikely that we will ever find this to be untrue. But unlikely and impossible are not the same thing.


Mathematics is the basis of most science.

Logic is the basis of science as well, but that doesn't make logic a science. Math is used in science. It is not, in and of itself, science.

The reason we can know maths with certainty, is of course that we have defined it.

Exactly. Thus, the scientific method is not necessary. We can set out to prove something in math, as we have defined the system under which to do it. In science, the system is out there, but we didn't create it. Therefore, we are learning what the rules are - and cannot prove anything with complete certainty.

You can say that maths isn't (usually) the basis of science theories,

Why would I say that? Math is certainly one of the basic systems used in science.

but saying that it's not science is wildly inaccurate in my humble opinion.

Mathematics is not bound by the scientific method. Therefore, it is not science, as science is defined by the scientific method.

Is Philosophy a science? Yes.. (So is theology, and sociology, and infact, Politics can be a science too)...

Incorrect. Science is a form of philosophy, as are theology, sociology, etc. The form of philosophy known as science is bound by the scientific method.

Neither theology, sociology, nor any form of philosophy other than science is bound by the scientific method. Thus, they are not sciences.

Even a brief study of the history of philosophy and of science would demonstrate this.


Edit: Using the "hard-science" and "soft-science" terms is a misuse of words in much the same way that using the lay-definition of theory in a scientific discussion is. You are using a colloquial use in a discussion of the technical.

Originally Posted by Willamena
Maths is not science. Maths manipulates symbols to derive conclusions; science studies empirical evidence, not symbolic.
Very noble, very outdated.

While biology, chemistry and other softer sciences usually deal with empircal evidence modern physics relies on purely theoretical foundation which might, or might not, be proven empirically in the future.

And mathematics is still very much a science: It is formed by observation, hypotheses and experiments.
Noble? Wow. :) Theoretical physics uses mathematical modeling to describe empirical phenomenon. This does not equate mathematics with physics. Accounting uses mathematics to derive budgets, but accounting is not the same thing as mathematics.

The problem with your argument is that we just can't say that e.g, vertebrates developed from invertebrates. Thus we cannot say if it can be repeated. Therefore, the probability is not 100%. So it seems to me that we are back to square to the start. Or did I miss something??

What we can say is that at least one of the hundreds and thousands of invertebrate species did, through evolution, develop into one of the early vertebrates. Of that we can be 100% sure otherwise there would be no vertebrates around in the fossil record.

But not 100%. ;)Indeed.

Noble? Wow. Theoretical physics uses mathematical modeling to describe empirical phenomenon. This does not equate mathematics with physics. Accounting uses mathematics to derive budgets, but accounting is not the same thing as mathematics.I never claimed that maths = phyiscs, biology, chemistry, etc..

However I merely stated that mathematics is a science.

No, it isn't. Mathematics is not bound by the scientific method, and is thus not a science.Of course it is bound by it. How could it not be bound by it?

Actually, it is the case. Anything which cannot be empirically tested and measured is not science. It may be logical, it may be mathematic, it may be philosophical, but it is not science.Quantum Mechanics: You cannot empirically study or test all quantum effectors or effects, only their results thus forming a purely theoretical model of the causes.

In face of standard definition of empiricism (a philosophical stand point, btw.) quantum mechanics breaks the view in favour of a practical model that can describe phenomena.

Scientific method is a good beginning, however it isn't the absolute truth and end of debate.
Can you? Can you say with 100% certainty that no human will ever go into a chamber with no oxygen and survive? Have you tried it the infinite times necessary to be 100% certain?Ah, you're an absolute empricist. I used to think like that...infact I got A from a philosophy homework back in high school concerning the issue of empirical proof...ah, enough of the rambling.

No I have not. And I will not. I don't have to, because I am well aware of what happens to a person in normal circumstances (did you miss that on purpose? ;)) if encountered with a severe lack of oxygen - Because of accurate science.
Then you cannot be 100% certain that it does so at all. You can point out the evidence that suggests that lack of oxygen causes problems. You can point out the pathways which seem to use it. But if you cannot explain it exactly, with no error whatsoever, with an infallible mind, then you cannot claim that it is necessary with 100% certainty.I can.

I can even hypothesize how the exchange might work thus leading into new knowledge.In 1000 years, we might find a condition under which human cells run along just fine without oxygen, as we might find that what appeared to a dependence upon oxygen was actually a dependence upon another factor that oxygen happens to affect - making oxygen itself unnecessary.

Now, is this likely to happen? Of course not. With all the evidence backing the idea that human cells need oxygen (and a rather specific concentration of it at that), it is very unlikely that we will ever find this to be untrue. But unlikely and impossible are not the same thing.What you are claiming has no bearing to average person in an average situation: The science is accurate.

Furthermore I specifically talked about breathing being necessary under normal circumstances - While I would defend this stance with oxygen, denying the participation of oxygen would not destroy the first hypothesis: You would have to dispute the need for any kind of gas exchange through lungs and skin.

But this is exactly what the debate is over. Some are saying that the evidence does not fit in with evolutionary theory. For example, if a witness (Mrs. M) in court was trying to give a false account of how Mr. X murdered Mr. Y (when in reality it was Mr. A who was the murderer), then Mrs. M's story would look like it had holes in it. Some of the story would match the evidence, and some would not. The jury makes their decision based on how well the story matches the evidence.
In the case of the origins of life, I've no doubt that many people are honestly trying to match the evidence to evolutionary theory (rather than giving a false witness as in the example), but the story does have lots of holes in it. Holes do not prove falseness, but they will very frequently follow it. Now, just because evolutionary theory is considered the best scientific way of explaining the origin and diversity of life, in spite of the holes, that doesn't count for two cents with me, since I am interested in the truth, not just the best explanation that we can come up with that only includes natural causes. So would anybody who was in science to discover truth. I don't give a rotten fig for an explanation that sounds good if I don't believe it is the right one. And I don't think I'm the only one. Science is not about finding nice sounding explanations. It is a search for truth in the material world.

Ok, you claim there are holes in the concept of evolution. Would you like to find one for me so we could debate it here? You see we keep hearing this claim, but so far I've not found anyone who wants to have that claim tested.

I never claimed that maths = phyiscs, biology, chemistry, etc..

However I merely stated that mathematics is a science.
That is true; however, your response to "Math is not science," was to point at the so-called softer sciences, with theoretical physics as an example. If you were not saying that it demonstrates mathematics as science, then I guess I missed your point. My apologies.

Theoretical physics does use mathematics to describe empirical phenomenon. It is a science because it studies empirical phenomenon in this way.

That is true; however, your response to "Math is not science," was to point at the so-called softer sciences, with theoretical physics as an example. If you were not saying that it demonstrates mathematics as science, then I guess I missed your point. My apologies.Infact I was just a lazy quoter.

My point was about the empiricism. :)

Infact I was just a lazy quoter.

My point was about the empiricism. :)
I finally got that. ;) Are you looking forward to the long weekend as much as I am? *sigh*

QM is all about probabilities, not certainties.

Maths is very much a science.

It's a subset of logics..or vice versa: The very tools of science.

It is the purest of sciences.

I finally got that. ;);)
It is the purest of sciences.In the end...yes, it could probably be classified as that.

Never claimed that...I'm stating that mathematics is a science.

Indeed, people only have to look it up:-

mathematics
n plural noun [usually treated as singular] the branch of science concerned with number, quantity, and space, either as abstract concepts (pure mathematics) or as applied to physics, engineering, and other subjects (applied mathematics).

Maths is not science. Maths manipulates symbols to derive conclusions; science studies empirical evidence, not symbolic.

Maths is a science, a key science. MAths does use symbols, and that is what they are - representations for real world things or values.

While "the inherent structure of the Universe", whatever that may be, may be an uncertainty, that is not the main reason why science cannot depict reality with 100% accuracy. The main reason is that scientists are biological lifeforms limited to unique perspectives on the world, and objective reality can only ever be abstract for them.

Uncertainty is a special propery of some aspects of quantum physics. However, it is possible to know the certainty of the bounded uncertainty.

Of course it is bound by it. How could it not be bound by it?

No, it isn't. There is no rule in mathematics that states that you must follow the scientific method. In fact, in much of mathematics, the scientific method would have no meaning at all.

Logic itself is not bound by the scientific method, as the scientific method is a subset of logic. Mathematics being another subset of logic, it is bound by its own rules, not by those of the scientific method.

Quantum Mechanics: You cannot empirically study or test all quantum effectors or effects, only their results thus forming a purely theoretical model of the causes.

It is possible to empirically study and test all quantum effectors or effects. The fact that we do not yet have the technology to do so is irrelevant. With better devices for measurement, they could be empirically studied.

In face of standard definition of empiricism (a philosophical stand point, btw.) quantum mechanics breaks the view in favour of a practical model that can describe phenomena.

Quantum mechanics can and does describe phenomena, even at the levels at which we would not normally use it. The only reason we do not teach quantum mechanics in a low-level physics class as the best current description of mechanics is the fact that it is so very complicated. Much like we teach undergraduate engineers to make assumptions like, "Gravity does not matter in this problem," and give them equations that ignore it even though it actually does have an effect, we also tell young physics students to ignore quantum factors and use Newtonian mechanics in simple problems.

Scientific method is a good beginning, however it isn't the absolute truth and end of debate.

Of course it isn't! But, in science, the scientific method is the very basis of study. Anything that uses another basis is not science - it is something else.

Ah, you're an absolute empricist.

Hardly. There are many things I am interested in that have nothing to do with empiricism. There are many things I study that have nothing to do with it. I simply realize that these branches of study are not science. Most of them fall under some form of philosophy - but not science.

No I have not. And I will not. I don't have to, because I am well aware of what happens to a person in normal circumstances (did you miss that on purpose? ;)) if encountered with a severe lack of oxygen - Because of accurate science.

Irrelevant. What happens under normal circumstances does not describe every possible circumstance - and thus you cannot make a statement that is 100% certain that human beings rely on oxygen. If there are any circumstances at all in which human tissue can remain alive and working without oxygen, then the tissues are not actually reliant upon it. Unless you have searched every possible situation, then you cannot say that there is not a circumstance in which this can occur.

If you want to prove something with 100% certainty, you must test every possibility an infinite number of times. Otherwise, you have to deal with a slightly less than 100% certainty.

I can even hypothesize how the exchange might work thus leading into new knowledge.

And that is how science works. Of course, even if your experiment upholds your hypothesis, it will be thrown out if any evidence is received that contradicts it. And that is how science works as well.

What you are claiming has no bearing to average person in an average situation:

Science is not confined to average people in average situations. It seeks to find the underlying principles that hold for all situations and then apply them to the average (or not so average, depending on what is needed) situations.

Incorrect. Science is a form of philosophy, as are theology, sociology, etc. The form of philosophy known as science is bound by the scientific method.

Neither theology, sociology, nor any form of philosophy other than science is bound by the scientific method. Thus, they are not sciences.

Even a brief study of the history of philosophy and of science would demonstrate this.


Edit: Using the "hard-science" and "soft-science" terms is a misuse of words in much the same way that using the lay-definition of theory in a scientific discussion is. You are using a colloquial use in a discussion of the technical.

I'm afraid you do not know the definition of "Science"... You may want to review it.

I'm afraid you do not know the definition of "Science"... You may want to review it.

If you count philosophy as a science, rather than the other way around, I am afraid it is you who needs to review definitions - considering that science is quite clearly a form of philosophy.

Logic itself is not bound by the scientific method, as the scientific method is a subset of logic. Mathematics being another subset of logic, it is bound by its own rules, not by those of the scientific method.Scientific method does not propose rules, it proposes guidelines - Guidelines even mathematics chooses to follow.
It is possible to empirically study and test all quantum effectors or effects. The fact that we do not yet have the technology to do so is irrelevant. With better devices for measurement, they could be empirically studied.They are by definition unmeasurable accurately, if at all.

I can believe your viewpoint, as even Einstein could not accept it: You can only end up with mathematical approximations.

This defies the whole concept of being empirically studiable, yet, does that falsify Quantum Mechanics?
Of course it isn't! But, in science, the scientific method is the very basis of study. Anything that uses another basis is not science - it is something else.Oh please. Your viewpoint stinks of regression: Would Einstein have made his wild theories if he had stuck to the strict definition of the Scientific Method or through empirical study?

You simply cannot, in all cases, look into a thing and explain how it works.

However you can apply scientific method to a process or theory, which is what it is meant to do: In the end Einstein's theories were proven to be fairly accurate through empirical study, while at the time there was very few ways to study them.
Hardly. There are many things I am interested in that have nothing to do with empiricism. There are many things I study that have nothing to do with it. I simply realize that these branches of study are not science. Most of them fall under some form of philosophy - but not science.Which makes you an absolute empiricist: Science can only be based on empirical study.

This however is not the case. Not by a long shot.
Irrelevant. What happens under normal circumstances does not describe every possible circumstance - and thus you cannot make a statement that is 100% certain that human beings rely on oxygen.What you're claiming is that only those people who have died of asphyxiation can be said to rely on breathing.

btw. Semantics, part of philosophy, is also an important part of science.
If you want to prove something with 100% certainty, you must test every possibility an infinite number of times. Otherwise, you have to deal with a slightly less than 100% certainty.I don't have to.

It all comes down to basics.

My claim, my 'theory':
Average person needs to exchange gas in order to live

I have hundreds of studies from fields ranging from biology and chemistry to medicine combined with empirical study to back this claim up thus I can use induction to create that theory and consider it as 100% accurate proven fact. My groundwork has been done, it's a de-facto standard theory: Another, sometimes too, important trait of science.

Now to falsify the existing theory you would have to prove that average person DOES not need to exchange gas in order to live. Even if you'd manage to find several specimens that don't need gas exchange in order to survive, does that falsify my theory? No. Does it render it inaccurate? No, because vast majority (the average person) still would require gas exchange to survive because of the needs of an average cell.

In the end, though, my theory could be rendered obsolete by advances made in technology allowing average people to survive without gas exchange.
And that is how science works. Of course, even if your experiment upholds your hypothesis, it will be thrown out if any evidence is received that contradicts it. And that is how science works as well.Science mostly works by improving and building up on old theories, not ditching them out. Unless that is (absolutely) necessary.
Science is not confined to average people in average situations. It seeks to find the underlying principles that hold for all situations and then apply them to the average (or not so average, depending on what is needed) situations.While that statement is not wrong, it's wildly inaccurate: Science can and does create theories that hold true only in a certain special set of conditions.

What you're hinting at is some kind of an ideal Unification Theory which will indeed in the end be the goal of science.

as I've said before in other threads...you can teach creationism in schools but the students are going to get super confused when they start learning about radioisotopes and their decay and half lives. some uranium isotopes have half lives longer then 4 billion years. yes, four billion.

Scientific method does not propose rules, it proposes guidelines - Guidelines even mathematics chooses to follow.

Guidelines are wishy washy. They can either be followed or not. Rules, on the other hand, must be followed. Anything outside of the scientific method cannot be called science. Therefore, they aren't guidelines for science - they are the rules. They are the process by which science is performed.

Meanwhile, while some of mathematics may choose to follow part of the scientific method, a great deal does not. In fact, a mathematic proof is completely reliant upon axioms which are untestable, as demonstrated by Goedel.

They are by definition unmeasurable accurately, if at all.

Hardly. The closest thing that comes even close to stating this is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Of course, it doesn't state that nothing can be measured accurately - simply that we cannot measure both location and velocity at the same time.

This defies the whole concept of being empirically studiable, yet, does that falsify Quantum Mechanics?

Oh please. Your viewpoint stinks of regression: Would Einstein have made his wild theories if he had stuck to the strict definition of the Scientific Method or through empirical study?

Yes, actually. In fact, when he first tried to publish his ideas, he was turned away until he provided empirical evidence for them. He did so. Thus far, we have yet to turn up a single situation in which his theories do not apply. Thus, they are valid theories in keeping with the scientific method.

You simply cannot, in all cases, look into a thing and explain how it works.

I never said you could. In fact, very rarely can you simply look at something and explain how it works. You can, however, using the scientific method, observe and test something and deduce how it works. Of course, your data set is always limited, so you may be wrong about some things - and this is why you must always be open to the fact that your explanation - your hypothesis - may eventually be disproven.

However you can apply scientific method to a process or theory, which is what it is meant to do: In the end Einstein's theories were proven to be fairly accurate through empirical study, while at the time there was very few ways to study them.

Exactly! And here you were stating above that they couldn't be studied empirically. You really do keep contradicting yourself.

Which makes you an absolute empiricist: Science can only be based on empirical study.

For me to personally be an absolute empiricist, I would have to believe that science is the only form of study - which I do not.

What you're claiming is that only those people who have died of asphyxiation can be said to rely on breathing.

No, I am not. I am claiming that we can only say that people are reliant on oxygen (with quite a bit of certainty, but not 100%) until we find a case in which people are deprived of all oxygen and still survive. If we never find such a situation, then we can go on with the theory that human beings are reliant upon oxygen. If we do find such a situation, then the theory was obviously incorrect. Since we have an infinite timeline and an infinite number of situations that might occur, we cannot say with 100% certainty that there is not one in which human beings could be deprived of all oxygen and survive. Considering the evidence, we could say it with a large amount of certainty, but not 100%.
I don't have to.

It all comes down to basics.

In the basics of science, a hypothesis or theory can be either supported or disproven, not proven.

My claim, my 'theory':
Average person needs to exchange gas in order to live

I have hundreds of studies from fields ranging from biology and chemistry to medicine combined with empirical study to back this claim up thus I can use induction to create that theory and consider it as 100% accurate proven fact. My groundwork has been done, it's a de-facto standard theory

Incorrect. In order to consider it a 100% accurate proven fact, hundreds of studies aren't enough. You need every possible study in every possible situation that can ever be possibly done on an infinite timeline.

Now, because you have so much evidence, you can know that it is a fact to within a very large certainty. Simply not 100%.

Being a theory does not mean that something is 100% proven. Once upon a time, the standard theory was that atoms were indivisible. If we had considered it 100% proven, we never would have discovered electrons, protons, and neutrons.

Now to falsify the existing theory you would have to prove that average person DOES not need to exchange gas in order to live.

No, you would need to falsify the idea that a person does need to exchange gas in order to live. In order to do this, all you would need is a single case in which a human being survived without gas exchange. Unless you could find something different about this person to explain it - thus making them different from the rest of human beings, your entire theory would be thrown into uncertainty.

Science mostly works by improving and building up on old theories, not ditching them out. Unless that is (absolutely) necessary.

To change a theory is to create a new theory.

I agree, science does not even explain how things work truely (and if we get things completely correct we can not know) it merely provides mathematical models and otherwise to explain how things seem to work. We do not really know why things fall to the ground. Ok gravity...which is the tendency for things to come to rest on the ground. Doesn't matter whether its spacetime continium or otherwise each theorhetical model provides a more accurate version to explain what things do. It does not say why things fall to the ground.

If you count philosophy as a science, rather than the other way around, I am afraid it is you who needs to review definitions - considering that science is quite clearly a form of philosophy.

Philosophy is a science, and science is a philosophy... It's all pointless; however, my point is THERE IS MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS OF SCIENCE... Though one is inclusive of the other.

Empirical (Hard) Science, is one... It's the science which has self-limited itself to an invented method (Scientific Method) of study; however, by definition ANY TOPIC OR SUBJECT WHICH IS PERSUED OR RESEARCHED IN A METHODICAL MANNER is a "SCIENCE" which is what is meant by the terms "Computer Science", "Political Science", "Social Science"... and also is inclusive of other disciplines, Systematic Theology, Sociology, Philosophy....

So my "distinction" is not some brand new invention, it's something to distinguish between types.... Any "Science" which fits the first and second definition is a "hard-science"; that which only fits the second is "soft-science". And differentiates between the effective empirical sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Geology, etc.) and non-empirical sciences (Philosophy, Theology, Sociology, Political Science, etc.)

Anything outside of the scientific method cannot be called science.

Another example...

Dem, I must assume at this point, you have never had any formal education outside of empirical Science; and thus will consider that a reasonable grounds for your ignorance.

However, you are hereby required to immediately and forthright, reffer to your nearest dictionary under the definition(s) of science, so that you may; for the benefit of all; discontinue such path.

BAWAA'isms will not help you.

Logic itself is not bound by the scientific method, as the scientific method is a subset of logic. Mathematics being another subset of logic, it is bound by its own rules, not by those of the scientific method.

Scientific method does not propose rules, it proposes guidelines - Guidelines even mathematics chooses to follow.

In some ways it could be considered the other way round. Maths, being the purest of the sciences, establishes rules that other sciences are forced to follow.

[snip]
Your viewpoint stinks of regression: Would Einstein have made his wild theories if he had stuck to the strict definition of the Scientific Method or through empirical study?

You simply cannot, in all cases, look into a thing and explain how it works.

However you can apply scientific method to a process or theory, which is what it is meant to do: In the end Einstein's theories were proven to be fairly accurate through empirical study, while at the time there was very few ways to study them.
A very good point., though I would argue wiht the "fairly accurate" :)

[snip]
My claim, my 'theory':
Average person needs to exchange gas in order to live

I have hundreds of studies from fields ranging from biology and chemistry to medicine combined with empirical study to back this claim up thus I can use induction to create that theory and consider it as 100% accurate proven fact. My groundwork has been done, it's a de-facto standard theory: Another, sometimes too, important trait of science.

Now to falsify the existing theory you would have to prove that average person DOES not need to exchange gas in order to live. Even if you'd manage to find several specimens that don't need gas exchange in order to survive, does that falsify my theory? No. Does it render it inaccurate? No, because vast majority (the average person) still would require gas exchange to survive because of the needs of an average cell.

In the end, though, my theory could be rendered obsolete by advances made in technology allowing average people to survive without gas exchange.

If you find a person that does not die wihtout gas exchange then you are not dealing with a person.

Science mostly works by improving and building up on old theories, not ditching them out. Unless that is (absolutely) necessary.

And the development of a new, higher, theory does not necessarily invalidate the older theory. Newtons theory of gravity is still just as valid as when he wrote it and is still used in most situations - including getting probes to Mars and beyond.

gasps, coughs, chokes, finally breathes again.......

Never have I ever believed in the absence of free will. NEVER!!

Aha, but you have not quite seen my point. Mutations are indiscriminate, rather than random. But they are also indiscriminate as applied to the process of evolution. They happen, regardless of an organisms 'need' of a mutation to supply genetic variation. So the calculations may be valid. If you consider a vertebrate, for example, which needs its backbone for survival, one may consider the development of the backbone as a crucial requirement of evolution. Thus, one can study the path of backbone development in the path of an invertebrate to a vertebrate as something that must happen, and thus calculate probability from this.

Interesting perspecitve... but fatally flawed.

Vertebrates only 'need' a backbone because that is the evolutionary track they follow.... if they had evolved down a different track, they would not need a backbone. If they evolve AWAY from their vertebrate form, they will not need a backbone.

You seem to somehow assume that 'vertebrate' was the GOAL of the pre-vertebrate organism that evolved into a vertebrate.

The problem with your argument is that we just can't say that e.g, vertebrates developed from invertebrates. Thus we cannot say if it can be repeated. Therefore, the probability is not 100%. So it seems to me that we are back to square to the start. Or did I miss something??

Yes, you missed something.

Whether or not vertebrates evolved from invertebarates... whether or not they appeared by the hand of God... whether or not they were put here when space-monkeys hatched 'vertebrate eggs' on the Earth...

All these are irrelevent to the probability.

We are looking at a thing that has already happened, thus, the probability of it happening ARE 100%. And, if it turns out (as the evidence suggests) that vertebrates DID evolve from invertebrates, then the chances of THAT happening must have been 100%.

I once tossed a coin, bobbled the catch, it bounced and landed on it's side. Well leaning against a wall that is.

So what does that mean? :p

Welcome about BTW.....

Sorry, but your puny 'real world experience' is as nothing, in the face of my blind faith that such a thing cannot happen.

You must have been wrong, it is too unlikely... therefore, it never happened... and you are just pretending it did as part of some evil satanic plot to undermine the obvious truth.

Philosophy is a science, and science is a philosophy...

If we make words interchangeable in our discussion, at least one of them essentially becomes useless.

Interestingly enough, while much of philosophy is restricted to the logical, all of it is not. Philosophy does not always refer to a specifed, rational, or logical progression of gaining knowledge. Although it is viewed with contempt by most people, rhetoric is a form of philosophy. It basically boils down to debating, not on the logical merits of an arugment, but on how eloquently (or sometimes how loudly) a person can proclaim their point. You would find very, very few people who would ever consider calling rhetoric science - and yet, by your definition, it is.

It's all pointless; however, my point is THERE IS MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS OF SCIENCE... Though one is inclusive of the other.

Yes, and there are multiple definitions of theory - but we only use one of them in a technical sense - specifically when talking about science in the technical sense.

Like I said, using the "soft science" and "hard science" terms when discussing these things is much like using the lay-definition of theory. From a dictionary point of view, you could call going for a walk and looking at all the different leaves of the trees, with no logical method at all, "science", so long as your purpose was to learn. From a technical point of view, you wouldn't really call that science.

So my "distinction" is not some brand new invention, it's something to distinguish between types....

I never said it was brand-new. I simply pointed it out that it was like trying to use the scientific definition of theory in the same conversation as the lay-definition.


Dem, I must assume at this point, you have never had any formal education outside of empirical Science; and thus will consider that a reasonable grounds for your ignorance.

Hardly. My main thrust has been in science, as scientiifc research is my goal. I have also studied theology, history, political science - all in a formal setting.

Choosing the most useful and technical definition and sticking to it, rather than trying to use them all interchangeably and therefore losing any true meaning to the word, is hardly a sign of ignorance. It is a sign of properly using language. In this discussion, we are talking about what should be taught in a [b]science[/i] class. In a science class, we are not talking about any of the less technical definitions of science - we are talking about that which follows the scientific method. Thus, for the purposes of this discussion, the definition of science that is applicable is that which describes a process using the scientific method.

If you find a person that does not die wihtout gas exchange then you are not dealing with a person.

So we completely understand everything about biology then? Nothing that, at this point, seems to be true could possibly be inaccurate.

Once upon a time, a person using your same logic would have said, "If we find a particle of matter that is not indivisible, then it is not an atom." Of course, they would have been wrong.....

And the development of a new, higher, theory does not necessarily invalidate the older theory. Newtons theory of gravity is still just as valid as when he wrote it and is still used in most situations - including getting probes to Mars and beyond.

Incorrect. Newton's theory is close enough. At the time, he thought it was absolutely correct. It is not - and is therefore not "just as valid as when he wrote it" unless, by that, you mean, "introduces just as much error as it did when he first wrote it."

It introduces an error by ignoring some of those aspects of physics which affect mechanics. Since those aspects don't cause a huge difference in certain situations and the calculations for including them would be much more complicated, we use Newton because it is close enough. We do this much like an engineer might ignore friction in a calculation. Friction is certainly there. If we want a truly accurate calculation, we cannot ignore it. However, there are situations where we can simplify our calculations by assuming that friction has no effect. It works because the answer we get is close enough, not because it is accurate.

If we make words interchangeable in our discussion, at least one of them essentially becomes useless.

Interestingly enough, while much of philosophy is restricted to the logical, all of it is not. Philosophy does not always refer to a specifed, rational, or logical progression of gaining knowledge. Although it is viewed with contempt by most people, rhetoric is a form of philosophy. It basically boils down to debating, not on the logical merits of an arugment, but on how eloquently (or sometimes how loudly) a person can proclaim their point. You would find very, very few people who would ever consider calling rhetoric science - and yet, by your definition, it is.

Funny, you say "my definition"... Yet this definition does not "belong to me", it belongs to the language... And I merely use it because it is an ALREADY established definition.... Can "rhetoric" be a "science" according to the accepted definitions of the term "science"? Yes, it can. Does that mean it is the same "type" of science as, let's say "Physics"? No, it isn't.

"Anything which follows the scientific method" == "A science" : Is true.

-however-

"Only that which follows the scientific method" == "A science" : Is false.


Yes, and there are multiple definitions of theory - but we only use one of them in a technical sense - specifically when talking about science in the technical sense.

In the "technical sense" Science is ANYTHING WHICH IS STUDIED IN A METHODICAL MANNER.... Which includes the Empirical Sciences...


Like I said, using the "soft science" and "hard science" terms when discussing these things is much like using the lay-definition of theory. From a dictionary point of view, you could call going for a walk and looking at all the different leaves of the trees, with no logical method at all, "science", so long as your purpose was to learn. From a technical point of view, you wouldn't really call that science.

WRong, as long as you're methodical it is a science.... A METHODICAL SySTEM OF STUDY... The is the only necessitant, the METHOD does not require the empirical "SCientific MEthod" however... Anything which is methodical (including Theology) is a "science" in the "Technical sense"... You're the one proposing some invented lay-definition whereby "science" is restricted to some arbitrary empiricism, denying such terms to ALREADY ESTABLISHED ACADEMIC FIELDS... "Hard" Science uses "Science" as their title, due to operating under a "Method" which is itself "Scientific"... IOW: This definition is the basis for yours... And it's not a "lay-definition"...


I never said it was brand-new. I simply pointed it out that it was like trying to use the scientific definition of theory in the same conversation as the lay-definition.

Hardly. My main thrust has been in science, as scientiifc research is my goal. I have also studied theology, history, political science - all in a formal setting.

Choosing the most useful and technical definition and sticking to it, rather than trying to use them all interchangeably and therefore losing any true meaning to the word, is hardly a sign of ignorance. It is a sign of properly using language. In this discussion, we are talking about what should be taught in a [b]science[/i] class. In a science class, we are not talking about any of the less technical definitions of science - we are talking about that which follows the scientific method. Thus, for the purposes of this discussion, the definition of science that is applicable is that which describes a process using the scientific method.

For the purpose of this Dicussion, you're pulling BAWAAisms... Does not work. Sorry, Dem... The discussion evolved enough to need to create a delineation between Empirical and Non-Empirical science. Explaining the difference (what I did) was the appropriate operation: Ignoring the difference and attempting to pervert the language (what you're still trying to do) is not.

For the purpose of this Dicussion, you're pulling BAWAAisms... Does not work. Sorry, Dem... The discussion evolved enough to need to create a delineation between Empirical and Non-Empirical science. Explaining the difference (what I did) was the appropriate operation: Ignoring the difference and attempting to pervert the language (what you're still trying to do) is not.
Honey, for the purpose of this discussion, you are splitting hairs, and refusing to acknowledge what your percived opponent is telling you.

Demp have already conceded that you are indeed correct, but that it has no bearing on this particular debate, other than to confuse the subject. Which is why she is objecting to your use of the word.

Obviously you already know this, so why in hell not bury the hatchet & move on. Or is it that you refuse that hard/empirical science is the full extent of what presently is taught in science classes? Perhaps you are trying to confuse the terminology here, in order to bring creationism into the science classes?

...This is getting rediculous.

Despite being a conservative (conservative Democrat, or Dixie-crat), I have to agree with the Capatalist Vikings: ID isn't a scientific theory and is best reserved for a phylosophy type class setting. The problem with that is, most secondary education systems don't offer these sorts of classes. So, to split it out you'd have to add a new class to the line up AND cut a current class from the class schedule. Who decides what class gets cut?

Agree with ID or not, it is a theory -though not a scientific one- with a wide following. If we don't allow it to be taught, then we're engaging in censorship: something we need to be VERY careful about. It's easy to say that something we disagree with should be silenced, but we have to keep in mind that somewhere there is a group of people who disagree with us just as anxious to silence us.

The only way to stay safe is to silence only that which threatens those around it: crying fire in a crowded theater, for instance.

Just my two cents.

Despite being a conservative (conservative Democrat, or Dixie-crat), I have to agree with the Capatalist Vikings: ID isn't a scientific theory and is best reserved for a phylosophy type class setting. The problem with that is, most secondary education systems don't offer these sorts of classes. So, to split it out you'd have to add a new class to the line up AND cut a current class from the class schedule. Who decides what class gets cut?

Agree with ID or not, it is a theory -though not a scientific one- with a wide following. If we don't allow it to be taught, then we're engaging in censorship: something we need to be VERY careful about. It's easy to say that something we disagree with should be silenced, but we have to keep in mind that somewhere there is a group of people who disagree with us just as anxious to silence us.

The only way to stay safe is to silence only that which threatens those around it: crying fire in a crowded theater, for instance.

Just my two cents.


If you believe that ID is a theory then so are fairies and goblins - do you want those taught about in a science class?

KNOWN: ID is a "theory", but not a scientific theory.

If you believe that ID is a theory then so are fairies and goblins - do you want those taught about in a science class?

To bad that straw man has already been beaten into the ground several dozen times in this thread alone. No, I don't want fairies and goblins taught in a science class. I don't want ID taught in science class past a very brief overview, either. You know, actually, in science class, it presents an excellent example of a non-scientific theory, a definition, it seems, many people have difficulty with (We don't want them getting a philosophy and goblins mixed up, now do we? Do we?? Do you?... Perhaps an important question.).

Now, where exactly did Terra Noir advocate teaching ID (as a scientific theory) in a science class? Could you point out this quote to me?

Meh. Perhaps you just misread it. It does happen. >_>

Funny, you say "my definition"... Yet this definition does not "belong to me", it belongs to the language...

It is the particular definition you have chosen to use, just as people who say, "ID and evolution are both theories," have chosen to use a definition of theory that is not the scientific one.

And I merely use it because it is an ALREADY established definition....

Suppose you were in a discussion about computer programming. There is an established definition of the word "program" tha tmeans "a brief usually printed outline of the order to be followed, of the features to be presented, and the persons participating (as in a public performance)". Would that be an appropriate definition to use, when the precepts of the discussion have already obviously limited the definition to " a sequence of coded instructions that can be inserted into a mechanism (as a computer)"?

Can "rhetoric" be a "science" according to the accepted definitions of the term "science"? Yes, it can. Does that mean it is the same "type" of science as, let's say "Physics"? No, it isn't.

Rhetoric, in the sense that I have just explained it - the way it was used in philosophy - is far from methodical. Thus, it doesn't even meet the same definition you have chosen to use.

"Only that which follows the scientific method" == "A science" : Is false.

Thta all depends on which definition you have chosen to use for the conversation at hand. Since we are speaking of science in terms of what should be taught in a science class, we are using the appropriate definition, and this is absolutely true.

This statement is like, in a conversation about computer programming, saying that something which cannot be coded into and run on a computer is a program. Because the precepts of the conversation have already limited you to a definition, the other possible English definitions are irrelevant.

You're the one proposing some invented lay-definition whereby "science" is restricted to some arbitrary empiricism,

I am claiming that, for the purposes of this discussin, which already limits it to that definition (which is not at all made up:

"3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws as obtained and tested through scientific method"),

science is restricted to empiricism. Of course, this restriction is not at all arbitrary. It is a product of the scientific method (which, as you can see, is a part of the definition).

For the purpose of this Dicussion, you're pulling BAWAAisms... Does not work.

Hardly. I have supported everything I said. You are the one making up strawmen and whining that you are absolutely correct without anything other than, "I KNOW IT IS SO!"

Sorry, Dem... The discussion evolved enough to need to create a delineation between Empirical and Non-Empirical science.

Hardly. That delineation was brought in specifically to muddy the discussion - just ast the delineation between a lay-theory and a scientific theory always is. Much like IDers want us to forget that scientific theories are limited by the need for empirical evidence, they want us to forget that science classes are limited by that which can be studied using the scientific method. They think it will make their point for them if they muddy up the language being used.

Explaining the difference (what I did) was the appropriate operation: Ignoring the difference and attempting to pervert the language (what you're still trying to do) is not.

By using the appropriate definition for the discussion, I am hardly "ignoring the difference." In fact, I am pointing it out quite bluntly.

KNOWN: ID is a "theory", but not a scientific theory.

To bad that straw man has already been beaten into the ground several dozen times in this thread alone. No, I don't want fairies and goblins taught in a science class. I don't want ID taught in science class past a very brief overview, either. You know, actually, in science class, it presents an excellent example of a non-scientific theory, a definition, it seems, many people have difficulty with (We don't want them getting a philosophy and goblins mixed up, now do we? Do we?? Do you?... Perhaps an important question.).

Ok, so forget ID and give them an overview of Fairies and Goblins, it would make just as much sense as ID would.

Now, where exactly did Terra Noir advocate teaching ID (as a scientific theory) in a science class? Could you point out this quote to me?

Sure, he said:-
Agree with ID or not, it is a theory -though not a scientific one- with a wide following. If we don't allow it to be taught, then we're engaging in censorship: something we need to be VERY careful about.


Meh. Perhaps you just misread it. It does happen. >_>

Sure, he said:-

*snip quote that doesn't say anything like what you are suggesting*

Which any idiot can tell does not say that ID should be taught as a scientific theory in a science class. In fact, it quite clearly states that ID is not a scientific theory.

Ok, so forget ID and give them an overview of Fairies and Goblins, it would make just as much sense as ID would.
No, it wouldn't. Like I said, this is a straw man. First, by normal definition, "Fairies and Goblins" are observable. Of course, you could start talking about "Mini Swimming Cereal Beasts of Moladune" (that are unobservable), but that is not a very...accepted theory. Nobody actually believes it. Contrary to popular belief, ID is a widely accepted theory, even among scientists (Note the lack of the word "scientific" before theory!). For the reason that it is a widely held belief, it has great relevance in a discussion about what is science and what is not. People relate to it, and some fail to realize the non-scientific-ness of it. The blaringly obvious fact that you reject this idea is irrelevant to its utility and to its possible reality. No offense in this question, by any means, but I am curious...what were you raised to believe?

Hardly. The closest thing that comes even close to stating this is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Of course, it doesn't state that nothing can be measured accurately - simply that we cannot measure both location and velocity at the same time.
Have you ever heard of Planck time, Planck distance, Planck mass, infact, natural units and Planck's constant? Do you have any clue as to what probabilites mean in relation to QM (say, eg. in determining electron orbitals)?

Besides uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both particles position and momentum accurately.

You could even wiki for Quantum mechanics and search for determinism in that article.
Exactly! And here you were stating above that they couldn't be studied empirically. You really do keep contradicting yourself.Did you read my post?

I specifically stated that when Einstein made his scientific theories it took best part of the century to validate them, while at the moment of their creation there were very few ways to study them, if any.

Thus going by your Science = Products of Scientific Method the Einstein's theories would not have been science until they were validated by either observation or testing. However, which scientist would care to study unscientific theories?
For me to personally be an absolute empiricist, I would have to believe that science is the only form of study - which I do not.Your definition of science is not what generally passes as the definition of science.

In the basics of science, a hypothesis or theory can be either supported or disproven, not proven.This does not make a theory inaccurate or uncertain.

Infact, one could even argue that a theory is 100% accurate, valid, until disproven.
Incorrect. In order to consider it a 100% accurate proven fact, hundreds of studies aren't enough. You need every possible study in every possible situation that can ever be possibly done on an infinite timeline.Untrue. The theory has been shown valid and is 100% accurate - In the end it nearly always can be degenerated down into definitions of words.

Let us consider an easy example where there's only one object and one simple definition...Like Earth. I can, with 100% certainty, say that Earth is not flat. Why? Because the definition of word flat as opposed to a spherical object like Earth. I also acknowledge the fact that this might be subject to a change in the future or might depend on the perspective but this does not render my statement less accurate.

Applying this into human gas exchange I can also say the following with 100% accuracy: Average human in an average situation needs respiration in order to survive. I can say this because of the definitions, what is?s, of respiration, metabolism, cell, cellular respiration, etc... and eventually energy. I acknowledge that details may change but the super-concept will not change until possible advances in technology: Earth will not become flat by fine tuning the surface geometry.
Now, because you have so much evidence, you can know that it is a fact to within a very large certainty. Simply not 100%. I can say it with 100% accuracy.
Being a theory does not mean that something is 100% proven. Once upon a time, the standard theory was that atoms were indivisible. If we had considered it 100% proven, we never would have discovered electrons, protons, and neutrons.Of course we would have because of the more advanced instrumentation that render the previous concept obsolete.

However, the products of that theory were not rendered inaccurate: Atoms still are indivisible to most realms of science in most cases, including chemistry and (even) physics.
No, you would need to falsify the idea that a person does need to exchange gas in order to live. In order to do this, all you would need is a single case in which a human being survived without gas exchange.An average person in a normal situation.
Unless you could find something different about this person to explain itThe very definition of human. Or in this case: the definition average human.

To change a theory is to create a new theory.I'd reverse that: To create a new theory you very often have to change an old theory.

Have you ever heard of Planck time, Planck distance, Planck mass, infact, natural units and Planck's constant?

Yup, in fact, I was talking about some of that earlier in this thread.

Do you have any clue as to what probabilites mean in relation to QM (say, eg. in determining electron orbitals)?

I've had to deal with determining electron orbitals. Haven't gotten much farther into quantum stuff than that - but I am aware that it has quite a bit to do with probabilty.

Besides uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both particles position and momentum accurately.

Yup.

I specifically stated that when Einstein made his scientific theories it took best part of the century to validate them, while at the moment of their creation there were very few ways to study them, if any.

...which is irrelevant. There were ways to study them - the observations already made were what led to them, and some tests were done at the time. I never stated that every possible conceivable test had to be done before a theory was stated. It simply has to be something that does arise from empirical evidence (as Einstein's theories did) and can be further tested in an empirical manner (as Einstein's theories were and can be).

Thus going by your Science = Products of Scientific Method the Einstein's theories would not have been science until they were validated by either observation or testing.

They were validated to a point by both during Einstein's time. The theories themselves arose from observation - and were tested at the time. As further testing has been done, they have been further validated.

Now, based on the scientific method, until something has been tested (and tested quite a bit at that), it cannot be a theory. An explanation which arises from observation (ie. Einstein's theories before any testing) is a valid hypothesis, so long as it arose from the testing and is testable.

However, which scientist would care to study unscientific theories?

None, I would hope.

This does not make a theory inaccurate or uncertain.

I didn't say anything at all about inaccurate, although that possibility is always there. It does make things uncertain, as they can always be disproven with further study unless they are correct.

Infact, one could even argue that a theory is 100% accurate, valid, until disproven.

That would be an extremely idiotic argument. It is logically impossible to disprove something that is 100% accurate. If it is disproven, it was obviously wrong to begin with, unless you think the workings of the universe are whatever we think them to be at the time. Of course, even then, that means we would never disprove anything....

Untrue. The theory has been shown valid and is 100% accurate

You cannot prove something 100% accurate without doing an infinite number of tests in every possible conceivable manner.

I can say it with 100% accuracy.

All you can say with 100% accuracy is, "Thus far, we have no evidence to the contrary of this theory. Therefore, as far as we know, it is correct. In the future, we may find out that it was incorrect on its very face."

However, the products of that theory were not rendered inaccurate: Atoms still are indivisible to most realms of science in most cases, including chemistry and (even) physics.

Atoms are not indivisible, period. And neither chemistry nor physics restricts itself to cases in which they are.

An average person in a normal situation.

Wishy washy definition. This would be disproven the minute the "average person" or "normal situation" changed.

I'd reverse that: To create a new theory you very often have to change an old theory.

......which is still creating a new theory and throwing the old one out. The old theory is no longer considered valid, as, without the changes, it is known to be incorrect.

So it is OK for them to discriminate not because of academic standards, but because they disagree with the viewpoint of the publisher?

And the next step if ID is allowed is what, religious tolerance? And that is really really bad? To be more tolerant?

:rolleyes:


Sorry, passing ID off as science is pathetic at best.

If these parents wish their children to learn Creationism, there are hundreds of Catholic schools out there who offer top notch education and cover both creationism in the religious education classes as well as evolution in the science class.

If these people don't like Catholic schools, maybe they should get off their ass, form and fund their own school instead of plowing millions into the Republican campaign coffers each year!

Shock f*cking horror! actually bloody well doing something for themselves rather than expecting a damn hand out! do I hear a praise the lord?!

Wow this thread picked up in a few days.

I started reading Dembski's book "Intelligent Design"

I am only at the end of the first chapter. Called "Recognising the Devine Finger" :D

No science so far. Bible talk and recoginising the affects of God and Gods involvement in history. For example the Ark and the Phillistines and Moses and the Egyptians.

Next chapter is "The Critique of Miracles" Probably the "interesting" part will be the forth chapter "Naturalism and it's cure" Just skiming he mentions Idolatry so....

Time for bed!

Hey post 1000!

It's my first thread to go that far! :D