So if Creationism/ID is allowed in High School, guess the next step? [Archive] - Page 5

Tekania

10-10-2005, 14:11

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.

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)"?

Once again, the one (later) is based from the other (former). Or are you telling me "a brief outline of the order to be followed..." does not adequately define a computer program?

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.

That's because you only recognize one method... For something to be "methodic" only means that there be an effective pattern of extended study and application... If something does not follow YOUR pattern, its not a method...

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.

Except, as already elaborated, the application being applied by UC systems leaked from merely involving the Empirical Sciences, and effecting the non-empirical disciplines of Sociology and Language studies as well... Therefore the larger definition is what applies in this case. Your sophistry attempting to re-narrow back to the singular empirical issue, to create a vilidity upon the larger issue; does not work.

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.

Inclusivity vs. Exclusivity... You have it backwards...

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"),

Which is not the same as saying "A science" == "Only that which follows the 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).

Empirical Science is restricted to empiricism. "Science" is not.

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!"

I have made proof of everything I said... You simple are trying to devalue all of it.... Bullshit will get you nowhere...

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.

No, the distinction arose, because of a fundamental flaw in your thought process... Empirical Science, necessitates a need to move to the non-empirical to function.... Physics, for example, does not exist (as a science) without Math.... And math is, effectively, a non-empirical science... This means that Physics relies upon concepts definined non-empirically by Mathmatics, to communicate its empirical theories... Thus the issue was important to raise a distinctive differnce between the concepts... You dropped the ball on it, Dem... Instead you choose to ignore it, and attempt devaluation of everything outside of the "Scientific Method"... When a fundamental connection is found (Empirical Science reliance upon the Science of Math), the proper course is to delineate differences, not ignore one side altogether.

By using the appropriate definition for the discussion, I am hardly "ignoring the difference." In fact, I am pointing it out quite bluntly.

Except the issue arose.... Physics NEEDS mathmatics, Mathmatics, you say, is not science... Yet, if it isn't... This means physics, as well, is not... Since Physics is effectively DEFINED BY mathmatics. Defining the empirical by the non-empirical.... Thus the purpose in differentuating between EMPIRICAL and NON-EMPIRICAL sciences...

You do not differentiate by excluding.... Every single educator on this entire fucking planet would likely have slapped you for what you're effectively trying to do right now... But showing differentiation in operation (empiricism vs. non-empiricism)... English uses adjectives for extremely valid reaons, Dem.

UpwardThrust

10-10-2005, 14:17

Once again, the one (later) is based from the other (former). Or are you telling me "a brief outline of the order to be followed..." does not adequately define a computer program?

wel A computer program is a series of coded instructions ... pre or post compiled

"a brief outline of the order to be followed..." is what we like to call psudo-code (ommiting abstract classes which again dont fufill the complete requirements for a program)

GMC Military Arms

10-10-2005, 14:22

My memory is foggy when it comes to Lucy. Was she the one constructed completly around a pigs tooth?

Nope, that was Nebraska Man, which was later shown to be a fraud by scientists. It was never widely accepted , and the drawing of it was by an illustrator for a popular magazine, not for a science journal; the Nebraska Man image was [i]never supposed to be a serious attempt at a reconstruction. Nebraska Man shows the success of scientific inquiry in weeding out a poorly identified specimen.

Or maybe the Heidelberg Man that was a modern mans jawbone combined with modern ape body skelaton remains?

Heidelberg man is a late homo erectus fossil. The jaw is in no way human, as anyone with a set of eyes can see:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/mauer.jpg

Or maybe the one that was proven to be a modern man who had severe arthritis?

You're making that up. That was claimed about a single Neanderthal skeleton in 1958, but many more have been discovered since then. Nobody today would claim all of the Neatherthal fossils are of men with arthritis. In addition, Chick's not done his research; the Neanderthal was claimed to be suffering from rickets, not arthritis.

Or maybe the one that turned out to be from a tribe that are living but a few miles away from the discovery point?

New Guinea Man? Jack Chick made that up, nobody's ever verified that such a fossil was ever claimed to exist.

Or was she of the Peking Man group that has since disapeared uterly?

'Peking Man' refers to early finds of homo erectus. It's true that the bones themselves are now gone, but excellent casts of them remain. As a minor note, simply quoting lines from a Chick Tract ['Big Daddy'] as scientific facts is a staggeringly bad idea, especially when they have nothing to do with the subject in question; Lucy isn't any of these fossils. Red Herring fallacy.

And therego my comment that it is highly debated! Missed that did ya?

You didn't make such a comment. You stated that 'The Creationists argue this disproves alot of evolutions theory's while the evolutionists claim it to be a fraud and refuse to aknowledge it while their own testing proves it ot be the truth...' [sic]

This is obviously a ridiculous distortion of the truth; even some creationists don't agree with the daft assertation that there are human footprints in the Paluxy riverbed. In any case, even if humans and dinosaurs did live side by side, it does not follow that they were created or that an intelligent designer exists, far from it. Why would an intelligent designer place his [supposedly] ultimate species, man, alongside massive creatures that would eat him? And why are dinosaurs and their extinction never mentioned in the Bible?

There are many more that have studied the fossils and they disagree with the smaller dinosuar theory. The prints are too clear to be eroded dino tracks!

Empty assertation. Why are the prints too clear to be eroded tracks or the result of deliberate tampering?

Demented Hamsters

10-10-2005, 15:02

I'd just like to say, GMC Military Arms, that is one damn fine post.

The Black Forrest

10-10-2005, 16:13

I'd just like to say, GMC Military Arms, that is one damn fine post.

Indeed! There is nothing to add to it!

G3N13

10-10-2005, 16:34

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.ok, apparently you did not browse wikipedia on the issue.

Here try this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
...which is irrelevant. There were ways to study them - tobservations already made were what led to them, and some tests were done at the time.Tests for them were not done properly until 1959 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity ).

The only proof used in the creation of the theory, and in most modern physics theories, was mathematical models - NOT empirical evidence.
It simply has to be something that does arise from empirical evidence (as Einstein's theories did)In this case I'd have to say that theory came first, observations later.

and can be further tested in an empirical manner (as Einstein's theories were and can be).While this was in no way apparent at the time when the theory was made.

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.Oh I don't dispute that. I'm merely stating that at the time the theory was made there was no evidence backing it up.

Sure it could be used to explain several things, however, there was no specific evidence making the theory more valid than its compatriots until much later.
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.Physics has to use mathematical models as a substitute for empirical tests: Nearly all theories arise from mathematical observation and explanations to phenomena.

Let's take superstrings: 10, 11 or 26 dimensional rubber-bands that happen to mathematically fit the current model. However there is no way to empirically study, observe, them or even the 6 extra dimensions.

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.So, Earth can be flat?

That would be an extremely idiotic argument. It is logically impossible to disprove something that is 100% accurate.Most of the science does not aim at disproving anything but refining and building on the pre-existing concepts: We don't have to invent the wheel again every time we begin to study something.
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.Not wrong, merely 100% accurate to a level that was previously studiable.

You cannot prove something 100% accurate without doing an infinite number of tests in every possible conceivable manner.:rofl:
So Earth can become flat?

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 core."Yes in the future. I was talking about today and even then only if something really special happens.

Eg. Earth will remain round unless it's flattened.
Atoms are not indivisible, period. And neither chemistry nor physics restricts itself to cases in which they are.Most chemistry does. Infact, for most chemical science molecule is the smallest unit they tamper with.
Having divisable atoms does not change chemists behaviour, their science, one bit...except in some cases.
Wishy washy definition. This would be disproven the minute the "average person" or "normal situation" changed.No..and yes.

Let's take medicine for an example: Most medication works for an average person, there are people for whom for some reason certain drug refuses to work. Does this make the medicine useless in most cases? Does it disprove the efficiency of the drug? No, it just refines the theory: If you have this condition then the drug might not work for you.

It does not debunk the drug, merely refines the target audience.

Therefore I can safely say, with 100% accuracy, that an average person needs gas exchange in an average situation order to survive. If you find a single example where this is not the case then it merely refines the theory (if you have this condition/are in this situation then this might not be the case), however, it does not debunk it or render the original theory inaccurate. Infact you could only refine the average person and average situation.
......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.This is where you go entirely wrong.

I could go into great lengths about how Newtonian laws of motion are still used to launch spacecraft, yet, it would serve no purpose. I could go on to describe how wave-equations are still used to calculate the motion of light while it's apparent that light is dualistic in nature, but I won't. I could explain how astronomers still use these tools to create new science, but I won't.

Laerod

10-10-2005, 16:46

:rofl:
So Earth can become flat?No. A grapefruit will never be an apple on the grounds that it isn't an orange. Earth might not be 100% guaranteed to be round, but that goes a long way from it being flat.

Dempublicents1

10-10-2005, 17:01

There are actually those who make that claim. But the fact that AIDS didn't exist in the past and does now is only proof of Micro-evolution! It is not a completely different species it is still a disease it is not like it "evolved into a parasite.

So all diseases are a single virus?

Meanwhile, the HIV virus is not a "species" at all - it is a virus.

I understand evolution completely,

Based on your posts, it is highly doubtful that this is true.

So why then are Native Americans the exact same as Europeans?

They aren't, and skin tone is not the only difference. The Native Americans were quite different from the Europeans in skull shape, in strengths and weaknesses, in immunities or lack thereof to diseases. Of course, with human lifespans being so long, it would take many more generations of separation that we've ever had to even create different races, much less different species - but the differences of relatively small periods of isolation are very evident.

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)".

Once again, the one (later) is based from the other (former). Or are you telling me "a brief outline of the order to be followed..." does not adequately define a computer program?

Actually, it absolutely does not define a computer program. A computer program is a set of commands. It is not a brief outline - a brief outline cannot be run on a computer. It does not name the features to be presented - that, in terms of computer programming, is the documentation you do outside of the program. And it certainly has nothing to do with the persons participating.

Are you really so desperate that you have to do the Randian philosopher thing, ignoring half of a definition and twisting it to make your point? There is no conceivable way that the definition quoted above could be applied to a computer program - nor does the actual definition of a computer program come out of that definition, which refers to the type of "program" you get at a performance of a play - come from that definition in any way.

That's because you only recognize one method...

Hardly. Do I have to define every word for you?

For something to be "methodic" only means that there be an effective pattern of extended study and application...

Yes, there has to be some sort of systematic method that is followed. There is none in rhetoric. Thank you for making my point for me.

If something does not follow YOUR pattern, its not a method...

Hardly. There are many possible methods, of which the scientific method is one.

Except, as already elaborated, the application being applied by UC systems leaked from merely involving the Empirical Sciences, and effecting the non-empirical disciplines of Sociology and Language studies as well...

...and did not claim it had anything to do with science. The only thing claimed to have to do with science was the rejection of science classes that did not teach science. The rejection of other classes would be related to the fields of those other classes - it is only you who are trying to apply the term science to them.

Inclusivity vs. Exclusivity... You have it backwards...

Not in the least. You are, in a discussion of empirical science -that science which is taught in science classrooms - trying to point out that there are definitions of science outside of that one. This is irrelevant.

Which is not the same as saying "A science" == "Only that which follows the scientific method"

For the purposes of this discussion, yes it is. Science we are using the definition I quoted above, then we are limited to only that which follows the scientific method. Thus, anything else, for the purposes of this discussion, is not a science.

Empirical Science is restricted to empiricism. "Science" is not.

And empirical science is what we are talking about, my dear. We are speaking of the scientific method, remember? Your quote was splitting a sentence that was very clearly talking about the scientific method.

Really Tekania, I have come to expect better from you than to attempt to muddy the discussion by pulling things out of context.

I have made proof of everything I said... You simple are trying to devalue all of it.... Bullshit will get you nowhere...

If we were having a discussion of linguistics, some of what you have said would have value. However, what you keep saying is irrelevant, as it would be if someone were screaming, over and over again, that there are other definitions of theory than the one used in science.

No, the distinction arose, because of a fundamental flaw in your thought process... Empirical Science, necessitates a need to move to the non-empirical to function.... Physics, for example, does not exist (as a science) without Math.... And math is, effectively, a non-empirical science...

And you claim a flaw in my though process? Relying upon something does not mean there is a move towards it. Meanwhile, you have things rather backwards here. Both science and mathematics rely upon logic. Mathematics is a system that we have defined for certain uses based upon logic.

Now, when physics uses mathematics, it isn't in the, "We can't explain this without math so, OH NO!, we have to use math." It is, instead, "From the measurements we have taken (Oh look! Empirical measurements!), we have determined that the following equation can be used to explain this process...."

This means that Physics relies upon concepts definined non-empirically by Mathmatics, to communicate its empirical theories...

It relies upon logic - which it was already reliant upon through the scientific method.

Instead you choose to ignore it, and attempt devaluation of everything outside of the "Scientific Method"...

Mathematics fits within the scientific method, my dear.

Except the issue arose.... Physics NEEDS mathmatics, Mathmatics, you say, is not science...

Mathematics is not, in and of itself, a science. However, it is a tool used within science. It is incorporated as a part of the scientific method through logic. And one must also note that the mathematics used in physics was defined by science. Calculus was borne out of empirical measurements. Since that time, much of it has moved into less empirical realms, but "math for the sake of math" is not used in science. In physics, the mathematics used is still born out of empiricism, when a phenomenon is measured and then an equation to describe it deduced.

You do not differentiate by excluding....

In the long run, I am excluding nothing. I am excluding other definitions specifically for the purposes of discussing one definition. I doubt that any educator would have a problem with me doing so, as to bring in the other definitions does nothing but muddy up the discussion and make it impossible to come to a conclusion.

Dempublicents1

10-10-2005, 18:04

Tests for them were not done properly until 1959 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity ).

No, certain tests were not done until 1959. Your link does not suggest that no tests were done. Einstein did submit papers on his ideas you know - with experimentation in them!

The only proof used in the creation of the theory, and in most modern physics theories, was mathematical models - NOT empirical evidence.

Do you think that mathematical models are created out of thin air? No, of course not - they are created out of the empirical evidence available at the time. Thus, since the mathematical model accurately described the measureable phenomena on hand - there was empirical evidence for it.

From your source: "Physicists accepted the theory because it correctly accounted for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury,"

Oh look! Empirical evidence for the mathematical model used!

In this case I'd have to say that theory came first, observations later.

Which would be an incredibly silly thing to say, unless you think people just sit around making up mathematical models that have nothing at all to do with the real world and then claim that they do. The model came out of observation of the world.

While this was in no way apparent at the time when the theory was made.

It is logically apparent in any theory of how the universe works. So long as something is hypothesized to be a part of the universal order - then it can logically be measured in some way. If we don't know how to measure it yet, that is irrelevant to the validity of the theory (or hypothesis, if it has not yet been tested enough to be called theory) - it simply means we can't measure it yet.

Oh I don't dispute that. I'm merely stating that at the time the theory was made there was no evidence backing it up.

Actually, you stated above that the theory did not come from observation, which would be a rather large dispute. And, of course, since there was observation that led to the model - there was evidence that led to the model. And since some testing was done during Einstein's time, there was even more evidence!

Sure it could be used to explain several things, however, there was no specific evidence making the theory more valid than its compatriots until much later.

Wrong, and your own link proves it.

"Physicists accepted the theory because it correctly accounted for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, a phenomenon which had long baffled physicists and because it unified Newton's law of universal gravitation with special relativity in a conceptually simple way. "

Einstein's theory described both the phenomena covered by Newtonian mechanics, and those that were not. This makes it more valid than the other ideas - because it actually explained the thus far unexplained phenomena.

Physics has to use mathematical models as a substitute for empirical tests: Nearly all theories arise from mathematical observation and explanations to phenomena.

Those mathematical models arise from empirical tests. No one just pulls a model out of the air and goes, "This is it!" A valid model must be consistent with that which can be measured.

Let's take superstrings: 10, 11 or 26 dimensional rubber-bands that happen to mathematically fit the current model. However there is no way to empirically study, observe, them or even the 6 extra dimensions.

This is exactly like the people who claim that evolution cannot be studied. Of course we can test this idea! From the model, predictions can be made of what will hapen within the dimensions we do know how to measure! If those predictions are not met, the idea is falsified.

Meanwhile, the superstring models, the multi-dimension models, etc. are hypotheses. You are correct that we have not tested them enough yet to call them theories. They have, however, arisen from empirical observation and a need to describe it, and they can, logically, be tested. Thus, they are valid hypotheses that might, with time, become valid theories.

Most of the science does not aim at disproving anything but refining and building on the pre-existing concepts:

...by attempting to disprove it. Experiments are designed to disprove a given hypothesis. When I hypothesize that placing cyclic stretch on my cells will align them in a particular way and then test it, that test can do one of two things: disprove my hypothesis, or give it support. It cannot prove my hypothesis, as there are too many variables for me to claim with certainty that it was the stretch that did it, even if they do align.

One refines the concepts specifically by disproving hypotheses. If something was hypothesized to fit into the overall theory one way, but evidence is found that it does not, the theory is then refined by that disproof - to describe the phenomenon in a different way.

We don't have to invent the wheel again every time we begin to study something.

Of course we don't. We can logically rely on evidence found in the past and the conclusions that were drawn from it - so long as they have not been disproven by further evidence.

Not wrong, merely 100% accurate to a level that was previously studiable.

I don't think you understand the concept of "100%". There is no such thing as a "level of" 100%. If it is 100%, it is 100%, period. You can't have "a little bit 100%" or "a lot 100%" any more than you can be sorta kinda pregnant. You either are pregnant or you are not pregnant. You either are 100% accurate or you are not 100% accurate. You can't be "sorta kinda 100% accurate."

:rofl:
So Earth can become flat?

Could it become flat? I suppose so, if something happened to flatten it.

Of course, that question has nothing at all to do with what was being said.

Yes in the future. I was talking about today and even then only if something really special happens.

Something cannot be 100% proven today and disproven tomorrow. If it is ever 100% proven, then it is 100% accurate, and can thus never be disproven. Again, you are having serious problems with the "100%" part of the discussion.

Most chemistry does. Infact, for most chemical science molecule is the smallest unit they tamper with.

Methinks you haven't studied much chemistry, considering that most of it is a discussion of where electrons (a division of an atom) go and how they switch between or are shared by different atoms. "Electron pushing" is a rather large portion of chemistry - especially in organic, but also in inorganic.

Anyone who attempts to do anything in chemistry with the assumption that atoms are indivisible can't do anything, as the very description of how atoms bind together into molecules or how ions are drawn to each other requires that the atom be divisible.

Having divisable atoms does not change chemists behaviour, their science, one bit...except in some cases.

One could just as likely say, "Traffic lights don't change driver's behavior, until they change colors."

Atoms are not indivisible. Any theory that relies upon them being so is already disproven.

Let's take medicine for an example: Most medication works for an average person, there are people for whom for some reason certain drug refuses to work. Does this make the medicine useless in most cases? Does it disprove the efficiency of the drug? No, it just refines the theory: If you have this condition then the drug might not work for you.

(a) I never said something that was not 100% was not useful. However, you have been saying that a theory can be 100% proven (until disproven, which simply doesn't make sense). This would be like taking the situation above and letting a company claim 100% success rate of their medication, since it works on average.

(b) You are misusing the word theory - taking it out of the scientific definition and into the lay-realm. Medicine, like engineering, deals in the application of scientific theory, not in scientific theory itself. In both cases, idealized models that are known to describe only a portion of reality are used because they are "good enough" (and much simpler) to be used for that application.

I could go into great lengths about how Newtonian laws of motion are still used to launch spacecraft, yet, it would serve no purpose.

I never said they weren't. Like I already said, they are "close enough." The effects of quantum mechanics can be assumed to be irrelevant because their contribution to the problem is small. That doesn't change the fact that the calculation itself is not completely accurate - it just means that it doesn't have to be.

Newtonian mechanics are no longer the most accurate theory of physics. As a theory, they have been thrown out in favor of a theory that does accurately describe things. That doesn't mean that, in some cases, they aren't useful.

In engineering, we often make simplifying assumptions. Why? Because it is simpler! Nobody wants to go through a quantum mechanics calculation for every little problem. Nobody wants to touch those equations unless they have to. So, we look at the situation and determine whether or not the error introduced by using Newtonian physics is great enough to worry about. In most situations, it is not.

I could go on to describe how wave-equations are still used to calculate the motion of light while it's apparent that light is dualistic in nature, but I won't.

Again, I never said they weren't.

I have to assume that you are intentionally misunderstanding what I say for the purpose of having an argument.

I never stated that we don't simplify things when it is appropriate to do so. On the contrary, I have stated the opposite time and time again in this thread. I have pointed out that we still use Newtonian mechanics. However, we don't do this because Newtonian mechanics are the accepted theory, or because they are completely accurate. We do this because they are simpler and because the result they return is good enough for our purposes. In using them, we are essentially assuming that certain factors which we know to affect them do not. In equations for the motion of light, we do the same. In a fluid dynamics problem involving blood where someone says, "Assume that blood is a Newtonian fluid...", we do the same. In order to apply the theories of science, we make simplifying assumptions to them. That doesn't make our assumptions scientific theories.

Grave_n_idle

10-10-2005, 22:26

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?

Have you observed Goblins? Or fairies?

Do you have a way to prove they exist?

The evidence for Goblin is the same as the evidence for God... that is, NONE, except for handfulls of alleged visions, and bokks upon books of historical claims.

Market-State

10-10-2005, 22:41

Have you observed Goblins? Or fairies?

Do you have a way to prove they exist?

The evidence for Goblin is the same as the evidence for God... that is, NONE, except for handfulls of alleged visions, and bokks upon books of historical claims.

To allow the teaching of ID would be the equivalent of teaching goblins and fairies; they are both "alternate views" with absolutely no scientific support, and thus no place in the science classroom.

Brenchley

10-10-2005, 23:01

There are actually those who make that claim. But the fact that AIDS didn't exist in the past and does now is only proof of Micro-evolution! It is not a completely different species it is still a disease it is not like it "evolved into a parasite.

It has less in common with any other virus than say the lion has with the house cat. Of course it is an example of evolution.

I understand evolution completely,

I bet you don't.

that is part of the problem and a major contributor to why I can't believe in it, and agree with you in part. If the population is small then it is not likely to have contributed to the "steps" of humanity. And you have helped me bring up a MAJOR point.
[qoute]When any populations are seperated by an effective barrier you will start to get genetic divergance.
So why then are Native Americans the exact same as Europeans? Putting skin tone aside since it really is irrelavent to this debate (but is further proof of MICRO-evolution). [/quote]

They are not the same as Europeans, in fact the only group of humans they share less common ground is some in Africa.

You see we can trace the expansion of man out of Africa by changes in genetic structure. The most common tracker used is human bloodgroups and I'm sure there is a lot of matterial on the spread of mankind on the web you can look at.

You will also be interested in this:-

http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi9.htm

While we are not likely to dig up the entire planet in search of fossils if something is important enough to our "evolution from monkeys" then the odds are that if a few mutant monkeys got fossilized then there would be fossils of the majority of the animal portions of the evolutionary steps in the same area since animal behaviour tends to keep them in the area of their birth. Wow run-on setence or what! Goodnight see ya'll in a couple of days...

You lost me with that one :)

Grave_n_idle

10-10-2005, 23:15

To allow the teaching of ID would be the equivalent of teaching goblins and fairies; they are both "alternate views" with absolutely no scientific support, and thus no place in the science classroom.

I utterly agree. They should ONLY teach ID in school AT ALL, if they are also willing to teach Fairy and Goblin histories. After all, there is about the same evidence for either (i.e.... none, except for hearsay).

And, since neither pursuit is truly scientific, NEITHER should be taught in 'science' classes.

Zagat

11-10-2005, 03:39

The "evidence' of various stages goes from in all essence an ape to essentially human with no actual link between them.
That is incorrect.

Darwinists like to take thata and say that this is the progress we made when the evidence just show s different "stages" within the independant groups.
Do they? I wouldnt know having little interest in Darwinists, whatever the heck they are.

Well most everything we have is concieved by humans. So what is the point here?
The point is that speciation is a measurement invented by humans based on observations. That means it is open to whatever manipulation people with whatever veiw choose to put apon it.

It is true that there can be more than one species present at one time as established by evolutionists. But evolution also states that one must "destroy or out survive" the other.
No it doesnt.

However when you have three, four or even five in on strata out of the theroretical twelve you run into problems.
No you dont.

There is even the highly contrivercial fossil that has (if memory serves) T-Rex (or whatever it has been renamed or not renamed) and human tracks in the same rock.
I think in this case memory is failing to serve.

It was actually discovered in a stream bed and was dug up for about 20' at upto 9-10' deep. The Creationists argue this disproves alot of evolutions theory's while the evolutionists claim it to be a fraud and refuse to aknowledge it while their own testing proves it ot be the truth...
Well I suspect your memory is not serving you, either way I cant really comment since you cannot provide anything that allows me to investigate just what it is you are referring to.

I appreciate your sense of humour! Not many in here have one unfortunately!
That's nice, most people dont appreciate my humour at all.... ;)

Fossil evidence, which is suupossed basiis for darwinism, shows that we go from having NO fossils to haveing complex organisms.
I dont think so. The fact is fossils are exceedingly rare. It is only when it just so happens that the right conditions exist for something to fossilise and nothing destroys the fossil before it is found, if it is found, that we have fossils. As for complex life forms, I suggest if an organism is composed of something other than soft tissue it would qualify as complex, soft tissue isnt suited to the formation of fossils.
Evidently fossil evidence is not the basis for darwinism so far as I know. I would suspect that darwinism would be based on the work of Darwin which was based on observation of living creatures not fossil evidence.

Oh Lord I must be getting tired my typing has gotten attrocious! I appologize and I need to go to bed!
I'm not bothered, so long as I can work out the intended message presentation doesnt overly concern me. Being dyslexic I often dont even notice typos anyhow.

Sweet dreams. ;)

Random Junk

11-10-2005, 04:05

No it isn't. In fact it almost certainly has less support than fairies.

What? What is your point? What evidence do fairies have? What evidence does God have that cannot be explained by natural phenomena (besides the origin of the universe, about which nobody agrees on)? None, huh? Then what are you talking about, or are you deliberately missing my point? What person do you know who actually believes in fairies past the age of 10? ID/Creationism/Christianity has relevance in itself in any non-science philosophical course. Fairies do not. Plutarch, yes. Goblins, no. Islam, yes. Egyptian theology, yes. Within science, you could talk about goblins during a discussion of what is and what is not science. But your course is inferior to mine. The example is laughably weak, and could be taken incorrectly. ID is strong here. If you do not see why, I suggest you stop deluding yourself...or perhaps I'm speaking from the US, and you're speaking from England. Maybe there aren't very many theologically inclined (or knowledgable) people there.

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.

One very good reason why it should not be allowed near children in schools.

Um...huh? Use some logic, please. Hearing about Creationism in school does not indoctrinate people into Christianity. Hearing about it as a science confuses people. Hearing nothing about it in the context of science often leads people to consider it in terms of a scientific theory by default. Hearing about it as an example of a non-scientific theory is quite beneficial, except in the opinion of those who favor controlling information by coercion. (Or maybe to people in countries that don't know about Creationism.) What? Do you think anybody really hears about Creationism in school originally? Come on.

(Time Lapse)

I've stated that before. I was raised in the Church of England but saw the light at about 13/14 years old when it became clear religion relies on faith in fairy stories.
Ok. (BTW, sorry I missed it the first time.) When did it become clear that the only things possible were things with empyrical evidence? No, you didn't state this directly, but you do believe it(not just going by this post). To put it differently, when did it become clear that one should not believe in something that he cannot see?

The evidence for Goblin is the same as the evidence for God... that is, NONE, except for handfulls of alleged visions, and bokks upon books of historical claims.
To allow the teaching of ID would be the equivalent of teaching goblins and fairies; they are both "alternate views" with absolutely no scientific support, and thus no place in the science classroom.
I utterly agree. They should ONLY teach ID in school AT ALL, if they are also willing to teach Fairy and Goblin histories. After all, there is about the same evidence for either (i.e.... none, except for hearsay).

And, since neither pursuit is truly scientific, NEITHER should be taught in 'science' classes.

All known evidence for God is theoretically explainable in terms of science. There is no evidence at all of any sort for Goblins. The point is, yes they are alternate views. So what? Teach them in philosophy, along with ID. Oh, Goblins aren't a philosophy? Then the Flying Sausage Monster Design, whatever. Teach it in philosophy. Have fun trying to fit in every view by every person. Maybe we just need to do away with philosophy, then, since we can't be fair to every documented philosopher, ever, along with every religion. No? Philosophy is legit? I see, you meant to ban just that particular, prevalent, accepted view, and not the others. You guys are looking at a lack of empyrical evidence and using that feature to compare it to Fairy tales. (A apple's greenness does not make it a lime, even though they are also both fruit.) If you fail to see the utility of ID "theories" in the science classroom, see above. The key is to UN-confuse the two.

Oh, please. ID isn't any kind of theory at all, just a very complex way to say 'I don't know.'
Yes, it is a theory, just not a scientific one. And we've been over "Big Brother" before. Also, it is not a complex way to say "I don't know" any more than conjectures into pre-Big Bang. And that's from a science viewpoint. Theologically, it is not a way to say "I don't know", except to children and those who don't know and need to (or won't ever know). Trust me, not everyone was built for real education (unfortunately). Anyways, the theology answering questions is not its primary function, though it has been made to serve where need be.

> 'The apparent complexity of life is due to the observable mechanisms that science has located; in addition, there is a further un-observable and inscrutable mechanism at work, a 'designer.' We cannot understand the motives of this designer, neither can we explain his apparent total lack of imagination, amazing cackhandedness in reproducing faults across entire groups of species, or his really, really odd fascination with beetles. Despite this, it is a theory.'

> 'Your theory is logically indefensible. Occam's Razor states that we should eliminate all unnecessary terms; your 'designer' is impossible to test for and adds nothing to your theory but a mysterious term that cannot be evaluated, and in context must be either an mindless entity, a deliberately perverse entity, or a phenominally stupid entity. Your theory is impossible to question; we cannot establish the reasoning behind the apparent flaws in the designer's work other than to have faith that the designer must have known what it was doing. Your theory is impossible to falsify, since the designer's motives are impossible to determine and therefore any anomaly can be incorporated.'

'Further, the holy grail of ID, 'irreductable complexity,' is not an obstacle to evolution as has been claimed, and most of ID's examples of such items are deliberate distortions, such as the account of a Bombadier Beetle requiring an 'inhibitor' chemical when it does not.'
This ENTIRE argument assumes that ID/Creationism has some kind of problem with evolution. Please point this out for me. I've never seen the conflict with xer theology...perhaps another ID theory? After that, it assumes that origins of existence can be explained in terms of science.

As I've stated before, xer theology is not mutually exclusive with evolution OR BB.

How, "in context", is God stupid or insidious or whatnot? Knowing very well the context, I disagree. I sorta thought he was brilliant, myself. And weird, too. He's nothing like any human I know..

> 'Err...But your theory is imperfect. It does not explain everything. There are mysteries.'

> 'An incomplete theory is capable of completion at a later date. ID can never be completed by logical or scientific inquiry because one of it's central terms and the mechanism by which that term affects the world cannot be demonstrated and cannot be evaluated. Since ID seeks to explain a matter of natural science, it must be evaluated on that basis.'
Just curious, what are these mysteries. Also, ID (by which I mean Creationism, of course) does not have to be evaluated as the rest of science because of its explaining natural science topics; this logic is false. ID is not science. Science is not the only thing there is to explain things, though I can understand how it'd be easy to accept this in modern society. Remember, science is a division of philosophy with strict rules. Since pre-universe concepts are beyond science, I could even assert that ID doesn't even work within the realm of natural science.

> 'But it's not a scientific theory. It doesn't have to be grounded in the scientific method.'

> 'That's just an excuse. If your theory cannot be analysed logically that is tantamount to an admission that your theory makes no sense. Further, if your theory is not logically justifiable it must take it's place alongside other theories that are not logically justifiable, such as that our memories are false and the universe was created by a flock of geese five minutes ago. In such a case, you would have to teach an unlimited number of 'equal' and equally ludicrous theories in schools in order to maintain some sense of parity, including ancient myths about the universe hatching from an egg and silly theories like that John in class 1-C is God and pulled the universe out of his ass yesterday morning. Such things aren't useful in the context of school education outside of a religious studies class, or in the latter case the playground.'
It is not an excuse. Again, ID is NOT a science. Stop trying to hold everything to science's bounds. Or worse, stop trying to hold particular things to science's bounds that are obviously not science. Science is a particular philosophy, held apart from others with a strong restriction. Next, the "flock of geese" idea was already answered above. Christianity has had a much larger impact on the world than this idea. We don't teach the philosophy of Kermit Stearns IV in philosophy class either. We have reasons for this: it doesn't help the objective education of persons in the context of society.

Last forum post: 10:15.

Random Junk

11-10-2005, 04:33

Do they? I wouldnt know having little interest in Darwinists, whatever the heck they are.
Lol, you know EXACTLY what he means (well, you get the idea). :rolleyes: It's a term for those who seek to prove that evolution is correct. Sorry, I don't have empyrical evidence for their alleged biases. That must mean they don't exist, scientifically, right? And Darwinist is a poor term, btw. Darwin was a Christian. I'd go with "Big Bangers" or "Evolutionists." Hmmm, maybe not the former.... =P No, seriously, he means evolutionist, I think. Those whose beliefs rest on the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution; especially those who seek to prove it. Which isn't very scientific of them. Anyways, that's my crack at a definition.

Well I suspect your memory is not serving you, either way I cant really comment since you cannot provide anything that allows me to investigate just what it is you are referring to.
Hopefully, he posts his resource NOT in book form. I am also curious. I haven't considered the possibility of literal creation by unit of time for quite some time. I would try Googling it, but I'm too lazy atm. =/ And should also be doing my work....

Zagat

11-10-2005, 04:54

Lol, you know EXACTLY what he means
No I dont.
(well, you get the idea). :rolleyes:
Actually I get more than one, from whence rises the ambiguity.

It's a term for those who seek to prove that evolution is correct.
'Believers of evolutionary theory'...to be honest that was really rather easy, laughingly so. I didnt however presume that 'believers of evolutionary theory' was what was meant by 'darwinist' simply because when in doubt I prefer to give someone the benefit of the doubt and since I know plenty of people who believe in evolution, yet have never once heard such a reductionist or vague claim being made by any of them when discussing evolution, I figured why immediately assume a definition that would render the posters comments incorrect.

Sorry, I don't have empyrical evidence for their alleged biases. That must mean they don't exist, scientifically, right?
You've lost me... :confused:

And Darwinist is a poor term, btw. Darwin was a Christian. I'd go with "Big Bangers" or "Evolutionists."
Ok now you are really not making sense. Yes Darwin like many other believers of the theory of evolution was a christian.

Hmmm, maybe not the former.... =P No, seriously, he means evolutionist, I think.
Well if the poster simply meant one who believes in the theory of evolution then that poster appears to be incorrect in having made the comment. That may be the case, but I hesitate to make such a judgement based only my (or your) speculation as to what was meant. There have been a few distinct 'schools of thought' that have been termed 'darwinist' and it may well be that such a school holds (or held) the view the comments state. In the presence of some ambiguity I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to the poster concerned, it isnt impossible that their comments have an interpretation that would result in the falsity of the assertion being made.

Those whose beliefs rest on the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution; especially those who seek to prove it. Which isn't very scientific of them. Anyways, that's my crack at a definition.
Aha, but since neither of us can know until the poster who made the statement clarifies what was meant, it is just speculation on our part. Hopefully the poster will return and clarify themselves what was meant.

Hopefully, he posts his resource NOT in book form. I am also curious. I haven't considered the possibility of literal creation by unit of time for quite some time. I would try Googling it, but I'm too lazy atm. =/ And should also be doing my work....
Glad I'm not the only one whose primary motivation to visit Nationsates is to procastinate when I ought to be getting on with something else.... ;)

G3N13

11-10-2005, 05:10

No, certain tests were not done until 1959. Your link does not suggest that no tests were done.
The article states that no strong evidence was found until that year.

Do you think that mathematical models are created out of thin air?Where did I say that?

No, of course not - they are created out of the empirical evidence available at the time.That is only, ONLY, one of the reasons for their creation.

Think of the superstrings: A theory that was created to join QM and Theory of Relativity with absolutely no empirical evidence to support the model itself - yet. However it mathematically makes sense.
From your source: "Physicists accepted the theory because it correctly accounted for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury,"

Oh look! Empirical evidence for the mathematical model used!Amazing isn't it?

However you fail to see that the connection was discovered only after Einstein had completed his model. Einstein didn't set out to explain percession or any other observation.

Instead he created mathematical theories and predictions for certain events that have been later confirmed: First came theory, then observation. Not the other way round, first you must know what to seek before you can find it.
Which would be an incredibly silly thing to say, unless you think people just sit around making up mathematical models that have nothing at all to do with the real world and then claim that they do. The model came out of observation of the world.Einstein predicted that Sun would cause light to deflect because of the spacetime-curvature it causes.

This effect was found in 1919.

He did not first observe light deflection and then explain it.
It is logically apparent in any theory of how the universe works. So long as something is hypothesized to be a part of the universal order - then it can logically be measured in some way.We already have theories explaining how things normally work. They're even relatively accurate, infact, you could even call on Newton to explain them to you.

However when you enter the area where QM or GR are the predominant theories then you might even *fundamentally* lack the tools or possibilites to study effectors and merely have to observe the effects.

Actually, you stated above that the theory did not come from observation, which would be a rather large dispute. And, of course, since there was observation that led to the model - there was evidence that led to the model. And since some testing was done during Einstein's time, there was even more evidence!The theory did not rise from observation, Einstein set out to find a geometrical model for gravity, now known as space-time curvature.
Wrong, and your own link proves it.

"Physicists accepted the theory because it correctly accounted for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, a phenomenon which had long baffled physicists and because it unified Newton's law of universal gravitation with special relativity in a conceptually simple way. "You are confusing causes and effects.

While GR did explain Mercury's percession (to a degree), the percession was not the cause for GR
A valid model must be consistent with that which can be measured.I agree. However, a model doesn't have to be formed from something or describe something that has been/can be measured.
This is exactly like the people who claim that evolution cannot be studied. Of course we can test this idea! From the model, predictions can be made of what will hapen within the dimensions we do know how to measure! If those predictions are not met, the idea is falsified.It already fits the measurements by definition. The point of the theory is to combine gravity to QM. However the strings themselves are not measurable or observable in any way...as of yet.
Meanwhile, the superstring models, the multi-dimension models, etc. are hypotheses. You are correct that we have not tested them enough yet to call them theories. They have, however, arisen from empirical observation and a need to describe it, and they can, logically, be tested. Thus, they are valid hypotheses that might, with time, become valid theories.Infact superstrings are a theory because they mathematically describe what it is they try to describe.
...by attempting to disprove it.Huh? No, most science is made by building on existing blocks. Either by taking a good look at some theory and then deducting or inducting to create a new hypothesis (which is then either debunked or verified by either observation, experiments or other relevant methods like mathematical testing), through wild insight (eg. measured speed of light in vacuum is constant regardless of other effects) or finding observational/mathematical disrepancy in the current theory that cannot be explained away by other known factors or needed unknown factors.

Experiments are designed to disprove a given hypothesis.No, experiments are designed to test a hypothesis. The experiments are by default neutral, they have to be.

One refines the concepts specifically by disproving hypotheses.I implore you to find an example of this.

Of course we don't. We can logically rely on evidence found in the past and the conclusions that were drawn from it - so long as they have not been disproven by further evidence.We do this even if the foundations are found to be inaccurate.

I don't think you understand the concept of "100%". There is no such thing as a "level of" 100%. If it is 100%, it is 100%, period. You can't have "a little bit 100%" or "a lot 100%" any more than you can be sorta kinda pregnant. You either are pregnant or you are not pregnant. You either are 100% accurate or you are not 100% accurate. You can't be "sorta kinda 100% accurate."I think it's you who don't understand the concept of 100%.

From a purely philosophical standpoint you are correct, you can only deduce so much: There are maxims that cannot be proven and have to be taken as 100% facts - An example of such an axiom is the definition of zero: 0 + a = a regardless of a.

However, when you limit the set of cases or level of details you can reach 100% accuracy:

I can very well say that a standard human (or animal) in a standard situation needs gas exchange in order to survive. Now if I define standard human in a standard situation as someone whose cells use aerobic metabolism and body temperature is near (34C-43C) standard human temperature then the first phrase is *ultimately* 100% accurate and only the set which it applies can change - This is because the latter precludes the former.

You are in a way correct too, because I have no way of telling whether someone is truly part of the set until the case is tested or I come up with an observational detail that tells a person belongs to the set (in this case 'if the person is alive' is a pretty damn good test).

Could it become flat? I suppose so, if something happened to flatten it.

Of course, that question has nothing at all to do with what was being said.It did, and it does.

What you said applies to the shape of the planet Earth:
You cannot prove something 100% accurate without doing an infinite number of tests in every possible conceivable manner.
Something cannot be 100% proven today and disproven tomorrow.Of course they can be, if situations change.

For example something can flatten Earth in the future. However Earth is not flat today.
If it is ever 100% proven, then it is 100% accurateAt that moment applying to the cases it is meant to apply.
Again, you are having serious problems with the "100%" part of the discussion.No it's you who has the problem with it: Not all (if any) theories are meant to be universal, universally in force or exact.

Infact no theory that proposes specific behaviour can be 100% exact when applied to reality.
Methinks you haven't studied much chemistry, considering that most of it is a discussion of where electrons (a division of an atom) go and how they switch between or are shared by different atoms.You can strip away all electrons of an atom and yet you would not have changed the type of the atom, you would not have divided the atom. H is still H even if it would be H- or H+
Atoms are not indivisible. Any theory that relies upon them being so is already disproven.Only and only if the theory would be generally disproven by the fact that atoms can be divided.

(a) I never said something that was not 100% was not useful. However, you have been saying that a theory can be 100% proven (until disproven, which simply doesn't make sense).No, I'm saying that a theory can have a 100% accuracy in the scope of its influence.
This would be like taking the situation above and letting a company claim 100% success rate of their medication, since it works on average.No, the company could claim 100% success rate of their medication for the people without the following evergrowing list of conditions...

(b) You are misusing the word theory - taking it out of the scientific definition and into the lay-realm. Medicine, like engineering, deals in the application of scientific theory, not in scientific theory itself. In both cases, idealized models that are known to describe only a portion of reality are used because they are "good enough" (and much simpler) to be used for that application.I merely used it as an example to drive a point.

I'm intrigued though....do you think medicine is a science?
I never said they weren't. Like I already said, they are "close enough." The effects of quantum mechanics can be assumed to be irrelevant because their contribution to the problem is small. That doesn't change the fact that the calculation itself is not completely accurate - it just means that it doesn't have to be.

Newtonian mechanics are no longer the most accurate theory of physics. As a theory, they have been thrown out in favor of a theory that does accurately describe things. That doesn't mean that, in some cases, they aren't useful. So, can the science that is based on disproved theories have any scientific value according to you? I got the specific impression that such items of study cannot have any scientific value in your opinion because they are inherently false (even if such is not the case).
Again, I never said they weren't.

I have to assume that you are intentionally misunderstanding what I say for the purpose of having an argument.No.

You are misusing words in order to propose an argument that does not exist.
That doesn't make our assumptions scientific theories.It can make for hypotheses that prove correct enough to become theories.

The Black Forrest

11-10-2005, 05:48

It is not an excuse. Again, ID is NOT a science. Stop trying to hold everything to science's bounds. Or worse, stop trying to hold particular things to science's bounds that are obviously not science.

Actually he is correct to weigh it in that fashion. The creationists are trying to shove ID into the science classroom so it deserves to get weighed as such.

Christianity has had a much larger impact on the world than this idea.

Then why is Christianity so afraid of evolution?

Dempublicents1

11-10-2005, 05:49

This ENTIRE argument assumes that ID/Creationism has some kind of problem with evolution. Please point this out for me.

ID, as what they are trying to force into schools, is entirely built upon the idea that evolution could not have happened. Their entire argument is, "Evolution couldn't have done X, therefore it was designed."

Creationism, while it can refer to any belief in creation (which is not necessarily exclusive with evolution) generally refers to a belief that one or both (although I don't know how any person could simultaneously believe both) creation accounts in Genesis are absolute, literal truth - as written. Thus, nothing could have evolved.

Where did I say that?

It is certainly what you suggest every time you try to separate mathematical models from empirical evidence.

Think of the superstrings: A theory that was created to join QM and Theory of Relativity with absolutely no empirical evidence to support the model itself - yet.

Using strict definitions, superstrings are not yet a theory. They are a hypothesis, brought about by observation, but not yet tested at all.

However you fail to see that the connection was discovered only after Einstein had completed his model. Einstein didn't set out to explain percession or any other observation.

He wasn't trying to explain any observations? He was just talking out of his ass with no reason at all to think that he was right?

Einstein predicted that Sun would cause light to deflect because of the spacetime-curvature it causes.

This effect was found in 1919.

He did not first observe light deflection and then explain it.

That prediction was part of a larger theory that was based in observation. Because of the fact that his theory made such predictions, we could later test them, but the theory itself wasn't formed out of thin air with nothing at all to back it up.

I agree. However, a model doesn't have to be formed from something or describe something that has been/can be measured.

A model that is to be considered scientific absolutely has to be formed from something or describe something that can be measured. Otherwise, you are discussing things that are outside the universe and thus outside the realm of science.

Meanwhile, again, you are suggesting that models are pulled out of thin air. A model that is consistent with reality has to be pulled from what is observed in reality. The chances are incredibly low of proposing a random mathematical equation and then just finding that it applies to reality.

Huh? No, most science is made by building on existing blocks. Either by taking a good look at some theory and then deducting or inducting to create a new hypothesis (which is then either debunked or verified by either observation, experiments or other relevant methods like mathematical testing), through wild insight (eg. measured speed of light in vacuum is constant regardless of other effects) or finding observational/mathematical disrepancy in the current theory that cannot be explained away by other known factors or needed unknown factors.

...which is essentially what I said.

No, experiments are designed to test a hypothesis. The experiments are by default neutral, they have to be.

And, logically, the only result of those experiments can be to disprove the hypothesis, or to provide support for it. Thus, when someone says that a scientist sets out to prove something, they are entirely in error. Testing something is attempting to discredit it - attempting to disprove it. Logically, if you perform an experiment that could disprove your hypothesis/theory, and it does not - then you have gained further evidence for that hypothesis/theory.

I implore you to find an example of this.

I have provided several, as have you. When testing debunked the idea that atoms were indivisible, the theory was disproven - and was then modified to include new information (they basically went to the model in which the nucleus is positive and electrons go around in perfect circles). Then, later, that was debunked, the observations are not consistent with all of the orbitals being concentric circles, so the data was fit to a mathematical model of orbitals that thus far describes the phenomena we have seen. The entire progression grew out of disproving - falsifying - previous premises.

We do this even if the foundations are found to be inaccurate.

No, we don't. We do make simplifying assumptions, but a scientific theory can never be reliant upon disproven foundations.

I can very well say that a standard human (or animal) in a standard situation needs gas exchange in order to survive. Now if I define standard human in a standard situation as someone whose cells use aerobic metabolism and body temperature is near (34C-43C) standard human temperature then the first phrase is *ultimately* 100% accurate and only the set which it applies can change - This is because the latter precludes the former.

If I define flying as walking along the ground, I can say that I can fly. However, it isn't very useful or logical. If you define every term such that you know something is 100%, of course you can talk about 100%. Of course, you aren't really talking about science at that point. You have basically said, "If I define the standard human in a standard situation ans someone who needs oxygen, I know with 100% accuracy that the standard human in a standard situation needs oxygen." Well, congratulations, you get the, "No shit, Sherlock," Award.

It did, and it does.

What you said applies to the shape of the planet Earth:

Yes, but we aren't talking about proving that the Earth is not flat - one cannot prove a negative. We are talking about disproving the idea that the Earth is flat (which has been done) or disproving the idea that it is round (which has not been done).

You can strip away all electrons of an atom and yet you would not have changed the type of the atom, you would not have divided the atom. H is still H even if it would be H- or H+

Which is irrelevant. I can take away pieces of my house and it would still be my house - that doesn't mean my house is indivisible.

Of course they can be, if situations change.

Again, you misunderstand me - and I can only assume on purpose. If situations change, you have done no study concerning that situation. We are not, however, talking about situations changing, unless you think that the universe itself has no consistency at all.

When Newton's Laws were shown to be in error, that wasn't because of a new situation. It was because he hadn't taken all things into account in the old one.

No, I'm saying that a theory can have a 100% accuracy in the scope of its influence.

If scientists tried to define things the way you do, there would be no progression of science.

I'm intrigued though....do you think medicine is a science?

There is a field known as medical science, but medicine itself is not a science, at least not from the scientific method standpoint. It is an application of science, as is engineering. However, neither are held to the scientific method and neither are held to recognizing a problem with a given theory - so long as the problem does not affect the particular application they are attempting.

So, can the science that is based on disproved theories have any scientific value according to you?

As far as progressing pure science? No.

As far as progressing technology? Absolutely - so long as the errors do not affect the application to a great degree.

Edit: Of course, in truth, neither would be based on disproven theories. They would be based on current theories, with simplifying assumptions made so that older theories can be used. Any work, whether it is scientific or technological, that is reliant upon or based on false theories will fail at its outset. When we make a simplifying assumption, we are not saying, "This aspect of reality does not exist. We are going to use an old theory." What we are saying is, "Current theory recognizes this aspect. However, this aspect does not affect the specific application with which we are concerned. Therefore, we will ignore it." However, if we would not get the same or damn close to the same results without the simplifying assumtion, it is an improper assumption.

I got the specific impression that such items of study cannot have any scientific value in your opinion because they are inherently false (even if such is not the case).

I have never suggested that studies made with simplifying assumptions cannot have any value. As I have already said, those of us on the technology side of things make them all the time. However, we would hardly claim them to be 100% accurate - we know better - we have simply taken a calculated risk by assuming that the effect they have is small enough that we shouldn't worry about it. If we start getting results that don't work, we would have to go back to the accurate theory and use it instead.

Like I said though, that is more in the application of science and scientific discovery. Pure science cannot rely on already debunked data and expect to get any closer to truth.

Random Junk

11-10-2005, 07:21

Actually he is correct to weigh it in that fashion. The creationists are trying to shove ID into the science classroom so it deserves to get weighed as such.
It deserves to be weighted as such only in regards to it being in a science classroom. For example, the fact that it is obviously not a firmly backed scientific theory makes it the perfect example of a non-scientific theory, despite its wide acceptance. The problem here is that some wish to teach it as something that it is not; this makes it a lie or at least an error of judgment (or maybe someone has some serious evidence we haven't seen). Do not reciprocate this error, as it will put you in the same category as your opponent.

QUOTE=Dempublicents]ID, as what they are trying to force into schools, is entirely built upon the idea that evolution could not have happened. Their entire argument is, "Evolution couldn't have done X, therefore it was designed."

Creationism, while it can refer to any belief in creation (which is not necessarily exclusive with evolution) generally refers to a belief that one or both (although I don't know how any person could simultaneously believe both) creation accounts in Genesis are absolute, literal truth - as written. Thus, nothing could have evolved.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's certainly not an argument for ID. And where are they trying to force this into schools? I hope they give up soon. Either that, or find some kind of evidence that makes Faith a little less like Faith.

Also, either are rather odd to accept literally...I mean, the Bible has both of them back to back! It should be tough to miss context. I guess, if that's what they were taught (and they didn't receive much in the way of formal education), it's hard to blame just everybody. It's the scholars and political people I'm worried about. How many Bible scholars believe in either literally? I'd like to see the apologetics on that one. (Seriously, actually. It could be interesting, if there's something to it.) I'm gonna have to go back to them sometime.

Then why is Christianity so afraid of evolution?
Is it? Some Christians are afraid of evolution, which they do not understand. Or maybe some are afraid that it will lead many to forsake Christianity (and lose their soul...you know, makes for bad day) because they do not understand. Perhaps they are afraid that the new, "scientific" perspective taught only slightly to everyone will lead to misunderstandings (a little education is a dangerous thing...or knowledge or whatever it was) in the area of, "Evolution has proof. Religion has no proof, therefore it is false." This is silly, true, but some prescribe to it, as seen even on this thread.

Of course, I could ask the same question to "evolutionists." :rolleyes: Some are afraid of Christianity; some have social reasons, some have theological reasons. Christians also have both, I think.

*snip*
Hehe. Line by line, eh? I thought it would just get ignored. Sorry about that. Yeah, I know you can't go assuming like that. Caught me kibbitzing. Bad habit, especially in chess.

Oh, and about... "Sorry, I don't have empyrical evidence for their alleged biases. That must mean they don't exist, scientifically, right?".

Yeah, I was cynically anticipating BAAWA thoughts on that one. Sorry. And I don't compare you to him, btw. Lol, that was rather out of place. Serves me right for trying to multitask when I know I fail at that. Time for bed. :p

PasturePastry

11-10-2005, 07:29

Some Christians are afraid of evolution, which they do not understand. Or maybe some are afraid that it will lead many to forsake Christianity (and lose their soul...you know, makes for bad day) because they do not understand.

Evolution is not the end of Christianity. If someone could explain evolution in simple enough terms that even a Fundamentalist could understand it, they'd just say "well, that's how God made living things."

If one were really looking to twist a knife into the heart of Christianity, one would do well to prove a steady-state or oscillating universe. With no beginning and no end, no God is necessary.

Joint Conglomerates

11-10-2005, 08:00

As a Roman Catholic, I accept the ideas of evolution and intelligent design, and do not personally prescribe to creationism. The validity of any of these theories, however, is not fundamental to this arguement. The central contention lies behind whether or not creationism should be allowed to be taught in public schools, which of course, it should be.

Let me first say that the notion of creationism being taught in schools is "evil" is really rather laughable and inherently un-American. The public school system is derivative of the public. If there is a large enough percentage of the public that desires creationism to be taught, then creationism should at least be an option. Creationism is not "evil," it is a point of view. To so nonchalantly dismiss it as you have is not only "evil," but ignorant and repulsively intolerant. I can assume that you are a liberal... Goody. Then as a member of a sect of American society that so energetically touts tolerance and acceptance as its basis, biggotedly dismissing creationism as you have is not only evil, but flat out stupid as well.

Southeastasia

11-10-2005, 08:05

In public schools, no. In private schools, let them do what they want. It's better off secular because then it doesn't alienate other cultures.

GMC Military Arms

11-10-2005, 08:22

This ENTIRE argument assumes that ID/Creationism has some kind of problem with evolution. Please point this out for me.

Has been done, but I'll do so again: ID proposes the existance of the infamous 'God of the Gaps;' in other words, that evolution cannot function without an inscrutable additional mechanism called a 'designer.' The designer cannot be questioned; it's impossible to figure out why it would choose a given design other than to state 'the designer must know what it's doing, because it's intelligent.' That's mindless dogma, not a theory of any kind.

You don't seem to understand that even if it isn't evaluated as pure science, this theory is totally unsatisfactory as an explaination because it can never explain anything. An explaination that explains nothing it attempts to explain is worthless.

How, "in context", is God stupid or insidious or whatnot? Knowing very well the context, I disagree. I sorta thought he was brilliant, myself. And weird, too. He's nothing like any human I know..

There are many serious errors to be found in the designer's 'work;' most of all, ID's much-touted 'irreductable complexity' is actually evidence against an intelligent designer because a real designer doesn't design products to work like a house of cards, with one tiny tap able to make the whole interdependant mess fall apart; a real designer designs things to be robust. By ID's standards, the Chernobyl nuclear reactor was a good design!

lso, ID (by which I mean Creationism, of course) does not have to be evaluated as the rest of science because of its explaining natural science topics; this logic is false. ID is not science.

ID purports to explain the natural world, therefore it must be evaluated in logical terms against observed data and tested empirically. To do otherwise and claim it's somehow valid is simply intellectual skullduggery; if ID cannot withstand logical inquiry, it is clearly a deeply inferior explaination of observed data. As said, if you try to exclude yourself from logical analysis, it is tantamount to an admission your 'theory' doesn't make any sense.

Furthermore, Creationism is also based on naturalistic assumptions; for example, you must assume the Bible has not changed since th last time you read it. The scientific method works when explaining natural phenomena: the technological grandeur of the society you live in is proof of the validity of the method for explaining the world around us. Explainations based on supernaturalism have never got us anywhere.

Science is not the only thing there is to explain things, though I can understand how it'd be easy to accept this in modern society. Remember, science is a division of philosophy with strict rules. Since pre-universe concepts are beyond science, I could even assert that ID doesn't even work within the realm of natural science.

In which case it is no more valid than the plot of The Matrix, which also imagines phenomena outside observable reality and is also logically useless. Shall we teach the Ascension of the Saviour Keanu Reeves in schools too?

It is not an excuse. Again, ID is NOT a science. Stop trying to hold everything to science's bounds. Or worse, stop trying to hold particular things to science's bounds that are obviously not science.

If you want to explain the natural world, you must compare your theory to data from it. If the theory does not match the data, as ID doesn't, then it should be altered or discarded. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending you don't have to conform to the same procedure as science despite trying to explain the same thing is utterly ridiculous. If you won't be held to scientific standards, what standards will you be held to when analysing this 'theory' to test it's validity? Or are we supposed to simply assume it's valid and skip that whole troublesome 'proof' stage?

I also think people like Behe who've spent considerable time trying to use the scientific method to prove ID valid would object to your calling it a non-scientific theory.

Next, the "flock of geese" idea was already answered above. Christianity has had a much larger impact on the world than this idea.

Appeal to popularity. Stalin had a much larger impact on Russia than Christianity, should we therefore assume the world was created by Stalin? 'A lot of people believe it so it must be valid' is a ludicrous standard of proof; not so long ago, a lot of people believed that enslaving blacks was perfectly ok; would you argue that because a lot of people believed it, it was somehow valid?

Sheltenstan

11-10-2005, 08:22

Everyone here has been making the same mistake, assuming that evolution has more scientific backing than creation. How can evolution be a scientific theory when there was no one there to observe it in the process? How come evolution hasn't been able to be reproduced, even with all our technology? Evolution in no way can be more scientific than creation.

Evolution is JUST a theory, and is in no way more or less scientific than creation. If you believe you can mix evolution in with christianity, you're venturing very close to Deism, which is a very different set of beliefs from Christianity.

GMC Military Arms

11-10-2005, 08:33

Everyone here has been making the same mistake, assuming that evolution has more scientific backing than creation. How can evolution be a scientific theory when there was no one there to observe it in the process?

It's happening now, we can easily observe it. Or are you claiming we must observe the entire process from start to finish? That would be a deeply ridiculous strawman; we've also never seen an entire mountain form, does that mean it's impossibe for mountains to form?

How come evolution hasn't been able to be reproduced, even with all our technology? Evolution in no way can be more scientific than creation.

Nonsense. The theory of evolution generates testable hypotheses which have been shown to be valid time and time again in lab experiments and by comparison with data. Creationism is unable to generate any kind of testable hypotheses at all. Evolution is not 'just a theory,' it is the cornerstone of our understanding of biology.

Godular

11-10-2005, 08:44

Evolution is JUST a theory,

It is not JUST a theory, it is a scientific theory, which is as close to downright law as science can and will get. You people keep misunderstanding the actual meaning of the word 'theory'.

and is in no way more or less scientific than creation.

Incorrect. Evolution has veritable archives of evidence racked up in support of it, and adapts to new information that comes in... sorta like evolving. Creationism nitpicks at percieved gaps in the theory and attempts to call the entire thing into question because we don't have a flawless record of everything that has ever happened on earth since the beginning of the planet, just so they can attempt to put in a 'GOD DID IT!'. In essence, doing the exact opposite of scientific study.

If you believe you can mix evolution in with christianity, you're venturing very close to Deism, which is a very different set of beliefs from Christianity.

At least they're accepting it.

Sheltenstan

11-10-2005, 09:44

It's happening now, we can easily observe it. Or are you claiming we must observe the entire process from start to finish? That would be a deeply ridiculous strawman; we've also never seen an entire mountain form, does that mean it's impossibe for mountains to form?

What you're seeing happening now is nothing more than micro evolution, which in fact supports creation.

Nonsense. The theory of evolution generates testable hypotheses which have been shown to be valid time and time again in lab experiments and by comparison with data. Creationism is unable to generate any kind of testable hypotheses at all. Evolution is not 'just a theory,' it is the cornerstone of our understanding of biology.

How can you say creationism is unable to generate testable hypothesis when there is plenty of hard evidence to support Intelligent design.

It is not JUST a theory, it is a scientific theory, which is as close to downright law as science can and will get. You people keep misunderstanding the actual meaning of the word 'theory'.

lol, Theory: a speculation based on educated guesses and previously proven laws of science.

Incorrect. Evolution has veritable archives of evidence racked up in support of it, and adapts to new information that comes in... sorta like evolving. Creationism nitpicks at percieved gaps in the theory and attempts to call the entire thing into question because we don't have a flawless record of everything that has ever happened on earth since the beginning of the planet, just so they can attempt to put in a 'GOD DID IT!'. In essence, doing the exact opposite of scientific study.

Eh, first off, you completely misunderstand creationism, but I'll work with this anyways. Nitpicking? little gaps? I guess questioning how so many different species, with such different genetic structure can all come from a common ancestory is nitpicking at a small gap in your theory! And bah, bah is what I have to say, Creation doesn't have a flawless record, you would know this if you've ever attempted to hear it out. There are different views and theories based on creationism, but none of them are as diverse as the theories floating around with evolution. We don't just slap "God did it" on everything. A strong theory I support about creation is that God created "kinds" (genus) and through micro evolution, such as wolves slowly changing over the years into different breeds of dogs, we got more diverse animals. There is so much scientific evidence pointing towards creation by intelligent design. We don't need to force laws of science to fit into our theories. Evidence! There is perhaps.....an extremely small percentage of data that actually works for evolution, compared to what works for creation.

At least they're accepting it.

And there you're admitting that evolution supports certain religions over others, which it very much does. If evolution is biased towards certain beliefs, isn't that the government infringing on the rights of the students, and the parents of the students to believe in whichever religion they please?

GMC Military Arms

11-10-2005, 10:26

What you're seeing happening now is nothing more than micro evolution, which in fact supports creation.

No it doesn't. The micro / macro division is emphasised by Creationists, but since one is just a lot of the other and there's nothing to stop macroevolution happening if microevolution does, it's not evidence against evolution at all.

Furthermore, we have witnessed evolutionary speciation in several species, which is macroevolution; also, literal creationism requires incredibly rapid speciation; the Ark myth needs macroevolution or the Ark is too small by orders of magnitude. So wrong across the board.

How can you say creationism is unable to generate testable hypothesis when there is plenty of hard evidence to support Intelligent design.

There is absolutely no evidence to support ID because ID does not generate any testable hypothesis. It can incorporate evidence , but it cannot make any predictions because it's mechanism is inscrutable.

lol, Theory: a speculation based on educated guesses and previously proven laws of science.

Ah, so you don't know the proper scientific definition of 'theory?' Let's clue you in: [i]gravity is also 'just a theory' as are the laws of thermodynamics that are one of the most fundamental principles of all science. A scientific theory is 'a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena,' and does not imply uncertainty.

A strong theory I support about creation is that God created "kinds" (genus) and through micro evolution, such as wolves slowly changing over the years into different breeds of dogs, we got more diverse animals.

That's a rather weak theory, considering macroevolution occurs at the species level and above and so you would have to accept it. That macroevolution means 'genus and above' is a creationist strawman with no grounding in the actual science.

There is so much scientific evidence pointing towards creation by intelligent design.

There is none whatsoever. Repeating this over and over won't change that; scientific evidence can't point to creation by an intelligent designer because scientific inquiry must discount appeals to the divine unless the divine can be demonstrated; this is because the inscrutable divine creator is impossible to measure, so theories incorporating it as a term are functionally useless and cannot generate predictions.

If evolution is biased towards certain beliefs, isn't that the government infringing on the rights of the students, and the parents of the students to believe in whichever religion they please?

No. Evolution is a secular theory and does not subscribe to any religious beliefs. It does not require or directly incorporate a God, but it also does not rule one out. The same could be said of electricity, plumbing, gravity, thermodynamics, engineering, mathematics, geography or almost anything else. The fact that a theory doesn't incorporate a divine entity doesn't mean it 'supports certain religions' at all.

Brenchley

11-10-2005, 12:07

What you're seeing happening now is nothing more than micro evolution, which in fact supports creation.

Lots of micro make a macro. If there is even a hint of micro evolution observed then that proves all evolution.

How can you say creationism is unable to generate testable hypothesis when there is plenty of hard evidence to support Intelligent design.

Ther my friend, you have the problem. There is not one single iota of evidence to support creationism or ID.

lol, Theory: a speculation based on educated guesses and previously proven laws of science.

You would do well to read up on what a scientific theory is. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory for a start.

Eh, first off, you completely misunderstand creationism, but I'll work with this anyways. Nitpicking? little gaps? I guess questioning how so many different species, with such different genetic structure can all come from a common ancestory is nitpicking at a small gap in your theory!

Yes, it is. There are, indeed, many thousands of species, but it is possible to see their relationship quite clearly in most cases. It is even easier now we have genetics to work with as we can see the family relationship withing the DNA.

And bah, bah is what I have to say, Creation doesn't have a flawless record, you would know this if you've ever attempted to hear it out. There are different views and theories based on creationism, but none of them are as diverse as the theories floating around with evolution. We don't just slap "God did it" on everything.

Sadly, that is just what you do.

A strong theory I support about creation is that God created "kinds" (genus) and through micro evolution, such as wolves slowly changing over the years into different breeds of dogs, we got more diverse animals.

Changing = evolving. So if you agree on that level then it is a small step to see that even the Family/Order/Class/Phylum and Kingdom can also be explained by evolution.

There is so much scientific evidence pointing towards creation by intelligent design.

With respect, people like yourself keep saying that but constantly fail to produce any.

We don't need to force laws of science to fit into our theories. Evidence! There is perhaps.....an extremely small percentage of data that actually works for evolution, compared to what works for creation.

A complete 180 degree reversal of reality. There is so much evidence for evolution that it is now beyond doubt.

For creation - sweet FA.

And there you're admitting that evolution supports certain religions over others, which it very much does. If evolution is biased towards certain beliefs, isn't that the government infringing on the rights of the students, and the parents of the students to believe in whichever religion they please?

Evolution is science, it has no bias.

The Black Forrest

11-10-2005, 16:27

We have hobbitses! ;)

Just a side thing to add .....

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/11/hobbit.jaw.ap/index.html

El Goliath

11-10-2005, 23:09

The reason, going back to the article as to why the classes from the private christian schools are not accepted is because the text books them selves are rediculous. Here is just a couple of paragraphs from the introduction of a christian biology text book:

"The position expressed by Dr. Bob Jones Sr. when he said, “Whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not be so,” is the only on e a Christian can take, but it does present some problems for a Christian high school biology student. Some of the conclusions a Christian must reach differ from those expressed by secular sources. If your teacher assigns a report on grasshoppers, an encyclopedia would be a logical place to begin. As you find out about the legs and wings of grasshoppers, how far these insects jump, their life cycle, how much damage they cause each year, and what type of insecticides are used to control them, you are gleaming scientific material.
The same encyclopedia may state that the grasshopper evolved 300 million years ago. You may find a description of some insect that the grasshopper supposedly evolved from and a description of the insects that scientists say evolved from the grasshopper. You may even find a “scientific” explanation of the biblical locust (grasshopper) plague in Egypt. These conclusions are based on “supposed science.” If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."

How can any college with people that half a brain even running them accept "learning" from a text book that states IN THE INTRODUCTION that the students need to disregard any conclusions NO MATTER HOW MUCH SCIENTIFIC FACT supports it, if it contradicts the bible or some other form of "gods word". The fact that people will even defend text books like this is as scary a thing as I can imagine.

All the hardcore religious people make baby jesus wanna :headbang:

Random Junk

12-10-2005, 02:38

NOOOO! Snap. I just spent a couple hours on a reply, and it got lost in the depths of the internet. I hate this site's cache behavior. Figures this was about the first post I hadn't backed up ahead of time. And I'm NOT completely rewriting it.

Anyways, in a nutshell, you misunderstand, GMC.

Creationism in the way I use it has nothing to do with evolution. You cannot hold a theology to science, but you can require its explanations to hold to science to be considered scientific. ID is deeply inferior to evolution from a scientific standpoint (after all, Creationism relies on faith, not evidence: clearly not science). However, you cannot call it nothing, as you are concerned with science. Science is open to possibility. Simply because you haven't come up with a method yet doesn't mean that none exist (this is speaking of literal, Biblical creation). Also, God very much explains the origin of the universe, something science has not yet done. Pretty far cry from explaining nothing. Wait, how does it explain nothing, again? Even on evolutionary terms. When did evolution become absolutely correct or ID (your definition, I guess) become absolutely incorrect?

BTW, your explanation of ID was weak. =( You have a very dogmatic view of it.

There are many serious errors to be found in the designer's 'work;' most of all, ID's much-touted 'irreductable complexity' is actually evidence against an intelligent designer because a real designer doesn't design products to work like a house of cards, with one tiny tap able to make the whole interdependant mess fall apart; a real designer designs things to be robust. By ID's standards, the Chernobyl nuclear reactor was a good design!
Non-sequitur/generally bad logic. First, "irreductable complexity" does not mean weakness. Complicated genetic codes have not meant fragility at all. Besides, since the probability was "1" for evolution happening as it did, that sounds pretty concrete to me. I think God can handle a house of cards. He's like the world champion. And he didn't create any outside influences we know of that could mess up the universe's direction, i.e. no wind. A space shuttle is an amazing piece of equipment. A chip in the paint or whatnot, and Kaboom!, right? Well, don't chip the paint, and make sure you don't plot a course that involves barreling into an asteroid. WE design things to be robust, since we do not know what will happen. We =/= God. Sounds dumb to say it, but do we really remember? Or, you could say, don't assume the designer is anything like us.

In which case it is no more valid than the plot of The Matrix, which also imagines phenomena outside observable reality and is also logically useless. Shall we teach the Ascension of the Saviour Keanu Reeves in schools too?
Appeal to popularity. Stalin had a much larger impact on Russia than Christianity, should we therefore assume the world was created by Stalin? 'A lot of people believe it so it must be valid' is a ludicrous standard of proof; not so long ago, a lot of people believed that enslaving blacks was perfectly ok; would you argue that because a lot of people believed it, it was somehow valid?
You misunderstand. I had a whole speech about popularity, etc, etc. But I'll just stick to the point. Popularity does not matter. Context does. This is science education we're talking about, and the distinction between scientific theory and the present state of ID (which is culturally relevant). And if you want to talk about The Matrix in philosophy class, go right ahead, just don't make it into a religion, which it's not. And don't try to use it as an example in science class, since it'd be awkward there. And everyone would have to watch the movie(s). I think enough people have heard about ID to make it relevant here.

I also think people like Behe who've spent considerable time trying to use the scientific method to prove ID valid would object to your calling it a non-scientific theory.
It has not yet reached the scientific status of theory. Behe's work may be scientific. He may even have valid evidence for biblical-literal Creationism, but it's still not a full theory yet. It is a hypothesis that still needs support, and more power to him in his research. I hope he is treated fairly, which I highly doubt.

If at first you do not succeed....

GMC Military Arms

12-10-2005, 09:11

Anyways, in a nutshell, you misunderstand, GMC.

No, as we'll see, your definition of ID is different to the one everyone who preaches it uses.

Creationism in the way I use it has nothing to do with evolution. You cannot hold a theology to science, but you can require its explanations to hold to science to be considered scientific. ID is deeply inferior to evolution from a scientific standpoint (after all, Creationism relies on faith, not evidence: clearly not science). However, you cannot call it nothing, as you are concerned with science.

ID is nothing, because it claims to be science but proposes a hypothesis which is untestable and cannot be falsified. It is therefore useless because it cannot help us to understand or explain anything.

Science is open to possibility. Simply because you haven't come up with a method yet doesn't mean that none exist (this is speaking of literal, Biblical creation). Also, God very much explains the origin of the universe, something science has not yet done.

Really? Then how did God create the universe, and why? It doesn't explain anything, saying 'God did it' just slaps a name on the unknown. It's like solving a mathematical equation by saying 'X.'

Even on evolutionary terms. When did evolution become absolutely correct or ID (your definition, I guess) become absolutely incorrect?

Strawman. Evolution is not necessarily totally correct, but ID is totally useless as a theory because it can't be used to predict anything or explain anything; life is the way it is because The Designer Must Know What The Designer Is Doing. Any further inquiry hits a brick wall because the designer is impossible to question.

BTW, your explanation of ID was weak. =( You have a very dogmatic view of it.

No, my description was completely accurate. ID claims to be science despite having a mysterious divine designer who magically influences the world through an undescribed mechanism. It's called 'creationism in a clown suit' for a very good reason.

Non-sequitur/generally bad logic. First, "irreductable complexity" does not mean weakness.

Yes it does. If no part of a system can be removed without the system ceasing to function, that system is not robust and is a poor design. Irreductable complexity does not mean 'complex genetic codes,' it is an argument applied to complex organs like the eye; the ID band will claim that a complex organ without all it's components in place will not function, therefore they must all have evolved at once, which could not have happened at random, which means they must be designed.

This is a logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance; just because we cannot see how something occured, it does not follow that it cannot have occurred! Further, as said, real designed systems have built-in redundancy in critical components, they are not designed so that any failure of a single given component renders a whole piece of machinery useless.

Complicated genetic codes have not meant fragility at all.

Even seen someone with a serious birth defect, congenital disease or mental illness? Complex genetic codes are highly prone to debilatory malfunctions.

Or, you could say, don't assume the designer is anything like us.

We are created after his image and ate an apple that gave us his wisdom, according to the Bible. Moses argued with God and won, indicating God is capable of error and that God's thought processes are entirely within a man's ability to comprehend and even to challenge successfully.

Throughout the Bible, God is clearly shown to be very much like us. In any case, if it's impossible to understand the designer, we should keep using sceince to study the design and see if there's a logical order to it. So far, there is, such that assuming the designer does anything is not necessary to explain the evidence.

Popularity does not matter. Context does. This is science education we're talking about, and the distinction between scientific theory and the present state of ID (which is culturally relevant).

Gangsta Rap is also culturally relevant, and also nothing like science. Shall we have classes in bling, homie?

And if you want to talk about The Matrix in philosophy class, go right ahead, just don't make it into a religion, which it's not.

Who are you to say what is and is not a religion? If I claim the Matrix is my scripture, it has as much relevance as ID or any other religious story of origins does, and is about as useless.

I think enough people have heard about ID to make it relevant here.

So? Plenty of people have heard of The Matrix, too. You sound like an Agent.

It has not yet reached the scientific status of theory.

It never will, but it pitches itself as one.

Behe's work may be scientific. He may even have valid evidence for biblical-literal Creationism, but it's still not a full theory yet. It is a hypothesis that still needs support, and more power to him in his research. I hope he is treated fairly, which I highly doubt.

You've obviously not bothered to study how ID defines itself at all. Behe's work is not attempting to prove literal Biblical correctness at all [which is good, since Biblical literalism also gets you a flat earth]; ID 'theory' accepts an old Earth, and even accepts evolution partly. ID proposes, however, that because some steps of evolution are 'too improbable' to have occurred naturally, so a designer must have been involved. It claims itself to be a secular, fully scientific theory last I checked.

Crackmajour

12-10-2005, 10:19

I could go into great lengths about how Newtonian laws of motion are still used to launch spacecraft, yet, it would serve no purpose. I could go on to describe how wave-equations are still used to calculate the motion of light while it's apparent that light is dualistic in nature, but I won't. I could explain how astronomers still use these tools to create new science, but I won't.

And I could go into great lengths about how heat is transfered using small faries to carry the energy between one point and another, it would not however be a correct theory.

Willamena

12-10-2005, 13:27

Willamena

12-10-2005, 13:35

What you're seeing happening now is nothing more than micro evolution, which in fact supports creation.
The so-called macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on a larger scale. Micro-evoution is evidence of macro-evolution.

How can you say creationism is unable to generate testable hypothesis when there is plenty of hard evidence to support Intelligent design.
Eh? What is one hypothesis of the Creation? or of Intelligent Design? Give me one, so we can try to devise a test of it.

lol, Theory: a speculation based on educated guesses and previously proven laws of science.
No, that is hypothesis.

And bah, bah is what I have to say, Creation doesn't have a flawless record, you would know this if you've ever attempted to hear it out. There are different views and theories based on creationism, but none of them are as diverse as the theories floating around with evolution. We don't just slap "God did it" on everything. A strong theory I support about creation is that God created "kinds" (genus) and through micro evolution, such as wolves slowly changing over the years into different breeds of dogs, we got more diverse animals. There is so much scientific evidence pointing towards creation by intelligent design. We don't need to force laws of science to fit into our theories. Evidence! There is perhaps.....an extremely small percentage of data that actually works for evolution, compared to what works for creation.
What are the theories of the Creation? No one has stated one yet.

And there you're admitting that evolution supports certain religions over others, which it very much does. If evolution is biased towards certain beliefs, isn't that the government infringing on the rights of the students, and the parents of the students to believe in whichever religion they please?
Beliefs are not religions.

Dempublicents1

12-10-2005, 18:01

Non-sequitur/generally bad logic. First, "irreductable complexity" does not mean weakness.

Actually, it does. The IDers claim that aspects of biology are irreducibly complex - that if you take one part away, the whole thing will fall apart. They basically set biology up to be like a large Rube Goldberg machine - each step completely reliant on the one before, with the entire system failing if one thing is taken away. A Rube Goldberg machine would be a perfect example of a truly irreducibly complex system.

Problem is, biology is not as fragile as they seem to claim. It is actually very, very robust. There are redundancies everywhere. If one pathway is lost, another will generally make up for it, even if it is less efficiently. We can completely do away with most genes and still have a functioning organism.

Complicated genetic codes have not meant fragility at all.

No, it doesn't. But "irreducible complexity" does.

You misunderstand. I had a whole speech about popularity, etc, etc. But I'll just stick to the point. Popularity does not matter. Context does. This is science education we're talking about, and the distinction between scientific theory and the present state of ID (which is culturally relevant). And if you want to talk about The Matrix in philosophy class, go right ahead, just don't make it into a religion, which it's not. And don't try to use it as an example in science class, since it'd be awkward there.

No more or less awkward than including ID would be. In truth, the only way you could include ID in a science class would be to explain how it is not scientific - how it is a perfect example of someone trying to claim something as science without following the scientific method. Do you really think it's proponents would go for that?

It has not yet reached the scientific status of theory.

And cannot, as it is entirely based in an untestable, unfalsifiable assumption.

Behe's work may be scientific.

See above.

It is a hypothesis that still needs support, and more power to him in his research.

One cannot scientifically research the supernatural. One cannot research something entirely based in an untestable hypothesis. Thus, he cannot gain scientific support for his ideas.

I hope he is treated fairly, which I highly doubt.

Treating him fairly is exactly what he is getting. He is trying to bypass the scientific method and still call it science. Thus, he is getting the boot, just as any scientist who tried to do "science" without the scientific method would.

G3N13

12-10-2005, 20:11

It is certainly what you suggest every time you try to separate mathematical models from empirical evidence.Sometimes they are seperate from directly observable universe.

Using strict definitions, superstrings are not yet a theory. They are a hypothesis, brought about by observation, but not yet tested at all.Observation of the effect of effect of the theory.

He wasn't trying to explain any observations? He was just talking out of his ass with no reason at all to think that he was right?You said that - I did not.

Sure, eventually nearly every piece of science is somehow connected to observations, however, such is not necessarily the case on a certain level. Einstein set out to create a theory which made gravity 'obsolete': A mere curvature of space. What this theory had to do was explain previous observations and predict the outcome of future observations: You cannot create science based only on the observations made today, it would eventually lead to the dead-end of science.

Especially in modern physics you have to first know what you are searching for before you can find it, like Heisenberg said: "It is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe."

A model that is to be considered scientific absolutely has to be formed from something or describe something that can be measured. Otherwise, you are discussing things that are outside the universe and thus outside the realm of science.Like superstrings? Like quantum indeterminancy? You cannot measure or prove those things absolutely but you can use those models to describe current phenomena.

Science advances by tackling the unmeasurable as of yet or even the, by definition, unmeasurable.
Meanwhile, again, you are suggesting that models are pulled out of thin air. A model that is consistent with reality has to be pulled from what is observed in reality.No. While model has to describe (to an extent) what are the observations (today) it does not, I repeat, DOES NOT have to arise from the observations alone.
...which is essentially what I said.No, it isn't. Unless you like twisting the concept, ideas or thoughts behind words.
And, logically, the only result of those experiments can be to disprove the hypothesis, or to provide support for it. Thus, when someone says that a scientist sets out to prove something, they are entirely in error. Testing something is attempting to discredit it - attempting to disprove it. Logically, if you perform an experiment that could disprove your hypothesis/theory, and it does not - then you have gained further evidence for that hypothesis/theory.No, testing can be created to support a theory, infact in most cases they are - While failure would not even debunk a theory, only modify it (if the test conditions preclude this), success would support it.

Tests are neutral. They simply have to be. You cannot have a biased test and claim its results as conclusive.

Furthermore, your argument is purely philosophical in nature: In science what has been sufficiently proven, or even sufficiently accurate, is taken as a fact to create new science. However, debunking the old science (not refinining it) would debunk all the science that has been specifically built for it.(they basically went to the model in which the nucleus is positive and electrons go around in perfect circles).Yeah, while the modern model is in favour of ultimately absolutely untestable probabilistic model.The entire progression grew out of disproving - falsifying - previous premises.No it did not. It grew from secondary effects being uncompliant with the de-facto standard model.
No, we don't. We do make simplifying assumptions, but a scientific theory can never be reliant upon disproven foundations.Of course it can. Especially in a non mathematical science (ie. not maths or physics) where there cannot be any absolutes ie. in sciences where the margin of measurement is truly insgnificant, for example: Why would behavioural science have anything to do with General Relativity?

If I define flying as walking along the ground, I can say that I can fly. However, it isn't very useful or logical.It is not you who does the defining.

However in a sense, we all are flying = not touching the ground. :P
If you define every term such that you know something is 100%, of course you can talk about 100%. Of course, you aren't really talking about science at that point. You have basically said, "If I define the standard human in a standard situation ans someone who needs oxygen, I know with 100% accuracy that the standard human in a standard situation needs oxygen." Well, congratulations, you get the, "No shit, Sherlock," Award.However my theory was not circular in nature. It just follows that if a cell needs aerobic metabolism, oxygen, then the organism needs gas exchange to produce more oxygen to the cells requiring oxygen.

All science has a scope under which it is in effect.
Yes, but we aren't talking about proving that the Earth is not flat - one cannot prove a negative. We are talking about disproving the idea that the Earth is flat (which has been done) or disproving the idea that it is round (which has not been done).I laugh at you. Weren't you the one who said that theories can only be disproven, not proven. Thus if the theory is a boolean one (true/false), like that Earth is not flat, can you not disprove or prove it?

Earth is not flat is also a positive claim: It states that Earth is in a state that is not flat.

You cannot make arbitrary definitions when it suits you.

Which is irrelevant. I can take away pieces of my house and it would still be my house - that doesn't mean my house is indivisible.Your house is an arbitrary concept.

Again, you misunderstand me - and I can only assume on purpose. If situations change, you have done no study concerning that situation. We are not, however, talking about situations changing, unless you think that the universe itself has no consistency at all.Situations change, and situations define science.

Would my theory of people needing gas exchange have any value, provable or not, in a situation where there were no people?

When Newton's Laws were shown to be in error, that wasn't because of a new situation. It was because he hadn't taken all things into account in the old one.He had taken all the accounts into account that were accountable for...and even more. Even Newton did not only follow observations.

He did **some** observations, then he formed his theory, then he did observations based on his theory and found them true. Heck, even 100% accurate to the measurable nature of the reality back then.

If scientists tried to define things the way you do, there would be no progression of science.Science does not progress through error alone.

There is a field known as medical science, but medicine itself is not a science, at least not from the scientific method standpoint.I pity your limited viewpoint.

As far as progressing pure science? No.So, how can any pure science be progressed through inherently inaccurate measurements?

As far as progressing technology? Absolutely - so long as the errors do not affect the application to a great degree.Interesting comparison and one could even argue that it's completely against your general viewpoint.

However, if we would not get the same or damn close to the same results without the simplifying assumtion, it is an improper assumption.So can pure science arise from inherently *inaccurate* assumptions?

..we would have to go back to the accurate theory and use it instead.What defines an accurate theory?

Like I said though, that is more in the application of science and scientific discovery. Pure science cannot rely on already debunked data and expect to get any closer to truth.Science can...no. Science has to rely on information that is inaccurate.

Godular

12-10-2005, 21:06

What you're seeing happening now is nothing more than micro evolution, which in fact supports creation.

Multiple people called you on this before, but I shall drive it home by saying that microevolution is just a small step in macroevolution, thereby providing evidence supporting evolution, not creation.

How can you say creationism is unable to generate testable hypothesis when there is plenty of hard evidence to support Intelligent design.

Easily, I type it down on this keyboard and 'Submit Reply'.

Oh, and no there isn't. The only 'Evidence' creationists use is gaps and perceived exceptions in Evolutionary Theory.

lol, Theory: a speculation based on educated guesses and previously proven laws of science.

Incorrect. Thanks for proving your ignorance.

Eh, first off, you completely misunderstand creationism, but I'll work with this anyways.

You failed.

Nitpicking? little gaps? I guess questioning how so many different species, with such different genetic structure can all come from a common ancestory is nitpicking at a small gap in your theory!

When we've got tons of evidence saying exactly that? Yes!

And bah, bah is what I have to say,

"Durn you, DURN you evolutionists and your bloody FACTS!"

Creation doesn't have a flawless record, you would know this if you've ever attempted to hear it out.

It has no record whatsoever because it is not a scientific theory. Oh, and I did hear it out. I laughed. I cried. I pointed out that humans have tails.

There are different views and theories based on creationism, but none of them are as diverse as the theories floating around with evolution.

Really? That's news. Far as I can remember there's only one Theory of Evolution, with scientists adding on to it with each passing day.

We don't just slap "God did it" on everything.

Yes you do. The moment you spot something that even remotely resembles a gap in the theory, you point at it say the equivalent of "AH HA! ITS FAKE! NEENER NEENER!"

Even after scientists plug the gap.

A strong theory I support about creation is that God created "kinds" (genus) and through micro evolution, such as wolves slowly changing over the years into different breeds of dogs, we got more diverse animals.

Got proof? Point it out. Betcha can't.

There is so much scientific evidence pointing towards creation by intelligent design. We don't need to force laws of science to fit into our theories.

No there isn't and yes you do. YOUR theories ARE just guesses.

Evidence! There is perhaps.....an extremely small percentage of data that actually works for evolution, compared to what works for creation.

Again, I shall say that there is NO EVIDENCE that points to Creationism, it all points to Evolution my friend.

I'd respond further, but it would include something about delusions of support and a proffered suggestion to read some book other than the bible, and would likely constitute an ad hominem attack.

And there you're admitting that evolution supports certain religions over others, which it very much does. If evolution is biased towards certain beliefs, isn't that the government infringing on the rights of the students, and the parents of the students to believe in whichever religion they please?

No I'm not. You're putting words in my mouth. Do not do that.

What I'm saying is that there are at least some 'Religious Types' out there with the ability to take their heads out from under the sand, albeit sometimes only in part, and actually accept evolution.

'Fanatic' is not a religious denomination... I think...

Willamena

12-10-2005, 21:11

In the "technical sense" Science is ANYTHING WHICH IS STUDIED IN A METHODICAL MANNER.... Which includes the Empirical Sciences...
So astrology is a science? It uses clear method, it studies things.

Godular

12-10-2005, 21:22

So astrology is a science? It uses clear method, it studies things.

No. No actual research is done. I suppose you could call it number crunching with planets.

Willamena

12-10-2005, 21:35

No. No actual research is done. I suppose you could call it number crunching with planets.
Well, I could argue that every individual case (of a chart cast) is a research project, but that would lead us off-topic. I just want to know if Tekania would consider it to be science.

Godular

12-10-2005, 21:43

Willamena

12-10-2005, 21:54

No, that is not research, it is looking at a chart. Astrologers basically watch the planets and their interactions and draw conclusions based on what happens when and where along the Zodiac. There is no actual scientific value to the work beyond practicing with telescopes.
Even your (incorrect) definition of astrology fits with "science" as Tekania was promoting it: "as long as you're methodical it is a science."

Godular

12-10-2005, 22:00

No, my definition is correct, if somewhat cumbersome.

(bolding mine)

Main Entry: as·trol·o·gy
Pronunciation: &-'strä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English astrologie, from Middle French, from Latin astrologia, from Greek, from astr- + -logia -logy
1 archaic : ASTRONOMY
2 : the divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects

Of course I don't mention the bit about human affairs.

Also, no it doesn't. Astrology brings nothing new to the table as a result of its continued practice. It is a novelty, not a science. Further, the comparison would be like lumping palm-readers in with biologists.

Oh, and Astrology, as far as I can tell, makes no attempt whatsoever to disprove anything.

Willamena

12-10-2005, 22:28

Astrology brings nothing new to the table as a result of its continued practice. It is a novelty, not a science. Further, the comparison would be like lumping palm-readers in with biologists.

Oh, and Astrology, as far as I can tell, makes no attempt whatsoever to disprove anything.
My point exactly. Well, close enough. But its method of casting charts and studying the results fits Tekania's definition of "science".

Bruarong

13-10-2005, 16:03

I'm merely stating that you can't refute evolution on grounds of the result being unlikely.

I'm not convinced of that view point. Perhaps one cannot refute the idea that all of life evolved from a single ancestor based on it appearing unlikely, but it is good grounds IMO for being rather skeptical about it, particularly on the basis of knowing how much complexity is involved, rather than on the basis of ignorance.

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.

That would depend on what processes the design theorists use to detect design. If they can provide an adequate means for detecting design that does not rely on the supernatural, then in one sense, they are capable of doing science, so long as they stick to the scientific procedure.
And I disagree with your viewpoint on science. The science procedure cannot comment on the existence of the supernatural. It cannot hold a view point that the supernatural does not exist.

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.

I think it is important to define what is meant by 'static'. Of course we can observe evolution on a smaller scale. What we don't have is evidence for the larger scale evolution, macroevolution. People claim to have the evidence, but it all depends on one's view point. Thus it is not really evidence, but data that is interpreted in a particular way. I have taken 'static' to mean that e.g. reptiles did not evolve into birds, but that birds can alter their beak lengths to take advantage of their environment.

G3N13

13-10-2005, 16:14

'm not convinced of that view point. Perhaps one cannot refute the idea that all of life evolved from a single ancestor based on it appearing unlikely, but it is good grounds IMO for being rather skeptical about it, particularly on the basis of knowing how much complexity is involved, rather than on the basis of ignorance.The probability of end result does not factor into it at all.

For example:
- Roll a die 1000 times
- write down the series you get (eg. 1, 5, 3, 6.....2, 2, 4)

Now think of what was the chance of you rolling that specific series? 1/6^1000 = 1 chance out of 1.4 * 10^778 yet you managed to roll that series.
And I disagree with your viewpoint on science. The science procedure cannot comment on the existence of the supernatural. It cannot hold a view point that the supernatural does not exist.
For science it can, no, it must hold such a viewpoint: Science cannot accept inherently unexplainable as a cause for phenomena.

Bruarong

13-10-2005, 17:07

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.

This, however, is a common assumption, both in the science community and outside of it. I believe it because I have encountered it the universities in three different countries. In this point, I have not been lying.

Once again, I refer to wikipedia for a consensus of evolutionary theory:

The theory underlying the modern synthesis has three major aspects:
The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor.
The manifestation of novel traits in a lineage.
The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.

If you look carefully, you will see that one of the points refers to the ''common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor''.

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."

It's not really the same. For one, we can do plenty of repeatable experiments to demonstrate that atoms exist. We cannot do this for the idea that all of life evolved from a single ancestor. Even so, plenty of people do research that is based on that assumption of a single ancestor. While you and I are capable of doing research regardless of our understanding of an atom.

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.

Cannot be brought into science in that science cannot be used to probe the supernatural. But that does not mean that we have to rule out the supernatural, or the interference of the supernatural. Does it not make sense to you, that if a theory posits that all of life came from a single ancestor, that the supernatural did NOT create humans as humans? Is this not ruling out the interference of the supernatural?

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.

Perhaps not a discipline, but plenty of university departments call themselves 'Department of Human Evolution' or something to that effect. I learned about what sort of work they did way back in my undergraduate studies. They even taught us about mitochondrial Eve and Y-chomosomal Adam. In the prac classes, we held replicas of the supposedly pre-human skulls (until one of my friends dropped one, and they we were forbidden to touch them).

Strange that you say that the theory will continue until it is disproven, when you probably should know that the idea that all of life arose from a single ancestor cannot be disproven, and thus will most likely remain a theory that, while is cannot be disproven, will be held as a valid theory on which to base calculations and predictions. People make false predictions all the time, so one cannot argue that generating false predictions on such a theory points to the theory being wrong, only that life is more complicated (or more simple) than they thought. Science is hardly in a position to disprove such a theory. Why, then, do we consider it the best? Perhaps this is the most prevalent theory in the science community, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But they should know that it is an opinion, not fact, otherwise they are misled.

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.

Why, then, do you repeatedly accuse me of lying, for goodness sake? I consider it most rude of you. Neither do I attempt to mislead anyone. I may be wrong. I may have made mistakes in my posts. But never have I tried to mislead anyone by what I understand science to be. I suspect it is one of your tactics battle your opposition. You ought to stop it. We are debating, not fighting. There is no winner, only learners and fools (those who refuse to learn). You may think me incorrect in my posts, but that gives you no right to assume that I am being misleading. I happen to think you incorrect as well. Should I call you a liar, or misleading? Rather, lets stop this silly nonsense and get on with the the debate.

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.

It is relatively easy to come to a consensus over the rules of mathematics. Quite another matter to agree on the rules of speculation in science. Neither you or I am in a position to decide. That is why debating is so important in science. Each part of science must be considered on its merit, not because some poobah says so. The rules of science do not say that the supernatural cannot be considered. It says that the supernatural cannot be measured.

I didn't say anything about logical - I said it was within the rules of the scientific method.

The rules of science have to be based on logic and reason. We humans have to define the scientific method based on such. What else do we have?

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."

That is not what ID says or does. It makes a rational conclusion based on knowing the information, rather than on ignorance. Perhaps you ought to take the time to get familiar with the design theory. I mean that in earnest. Otherwise you will be posting foolish things like that one above.

Eating some chocolate would be beneficial to your health. Eating a lot of it wouldn't be.

Rather, eating some chocolate would not harm your health. No one has clearly demonstrated that it is beneficial to your health, other than causing a general feeling of pleasure that may help, e.g., a cancer patient who is struggling with depression.

.....and therefore is the only interpretation which can be included. If testability is demanded, then one cannot invoke an explanation which cannot be tested.

Except that we cannot test the idea that all of life came from a single ancestor, although, amazingly, it gets invoked quite often.

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.

Would that be your opinion based on what you know of ID?

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.

Both ways are generally used. Let me demonstrate. Modern science has this idea humans evolving from apes. Darwin was not the first to come up with this idea, but he certainly pushed it. What sort of evidence did he have? Something about bird beak length. Several other examples including embryology (which turned out to be rather flawed). Darwin is an example of a scientist who had an idea of the world, and who reinterpreted the observations in the light of his world view. The prevailing world view at that time was a special creation. People observed the world and generally thought that it fit in with a special creation. The average person would have found the exceptional diversity of life to be evidence for a special creation. Darwin, however, tried to change all of that. He took the same observations, and reinterpreted it according to his world view, that all of the diversity of life could be explained by natural causes. This is a clear case of fitting the evidence with his world view. When called to account for his lack of evidence, rather than defend his world view, he would accuse the opposition of not being real scientists because they invoked the supernatural in their explanations (rather than trying to provide the evidence to support his world view).

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.

That is not what I meant. I meant that we can rule out God being motivated by silly motivations. If I find something that I don't understand, I do not assume it to be silly. Rather, I assume that whatever the motivation God had, it would not be a silly one.

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.

I agree with your point, however, it is irrelevant to what I was saying.

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.

We are getting waaaay off the thread. But I would define wise and sensible as the Bible depicts God, with his ultimate wish that everyone would enter into a loving relationship with Himself, for ever.

Good is defined by God, is it not? Therefore, something that we think is good may not be, and vice versa.

When you know your mother, you know what she likes, and what she doesn't like. When a person knows God, although he is far more intelligent and wiser than our mothers, he can be known in a similar way, so that it is possible to have a relationship with him, and to know some of what he thinks. Such a God is presented in the Bible. Of course his wisdom is far above human wisdom, but that does not exclude him from having a personal relationship with a human.

Understanding God would meant that we are at God's level. Are you proposing that we are all gods ourselves?

Just His children.

Every time that they start making probability calculations, they assume this.

Once again, I suggest you find out more about the design theory.

Bruarong

13-10-2005, 17:11

The probability of end result does not factor into it at all.

For example:
- Roll a die 1000 times
- write down the series you get (eg. 1, 5, 3, 6.....2, 2, 4)

Now think of what was the chance of you rolling that specific series? 1/6^1000 = 1 chance out of 1.4 * 10^778 yet you managed to roll that series.

Yes, I understand your point. But let us say that one person rolled the die 100 times and got a random series of numbers. Now, what is the chance of that person rolling the die another hundred times and getting the same numbers? This is the difference. The result is specified. If the result is specified, then probability does become significant.

For science it can, no, it must hold such a viewpoint: Science cannot accept inherently unexplainable as a cause for phenomena.

Why not?

The Similized world

13-10-2005, 17:36

GMC Military Arms

13-10-2005, 17:50

Once again, I refer to wikipedia for a consensus of evolutionary theory:

Appeal to Authority. Wikipedia may be a lot of things, but it is most certainly not a place to go for absolute definitions, especially on contentious subjects.

UnitarianUniversalists

13-10-2005, 18:00

It's not really the same. For one, we can do plenty of repeatable experiments to demonstrate that atoms exist. We cannot do this for the idea that all of life evolved from a single ancestor. Even so, plenty of people do research that is based on that assumption of a single ancestor. While you and I are capable of doing research regardless of our understanding of an atom.

But examining the Genes of various life indicate a common ancestor. Heck we share 75% of our genetic matterial with bacteria.

But that does not mean that we have to rule out the supernatural, or the interference of the supernatural. Does it not make sense to you, that if a theory posits that all of life came from a single ancestor, that the supernatural did NOT create humans as humans? Is this not ruling out the interference of the supernatural?

But science can't handle the suppernatural any more than math can handle psychology. There is what is known as meaningless questions: Did a supernatural force help create humans? I don't know, can you design an experiment to disprove a supernatural force? (remember in science nothing can be proven, it can only be disproven) No? Then it's a meaningless question just like, asking someone to prove mathmatically a person has Schizophrenia.

Strange that you say that the theory will continue until it is disproven, when you probably should know that the idea that all of life arose from a single ancestor cannot be disproven, and thus will most likely remain a theory that, while is cannot be disproven, will be held as a valid theory on which to base calculations and predictions. People make false predictions all the time, so one cannot argue that generating false predictions on such a theory points to the theory being wrong, only that life is more complicated (or more simple) than they thought. Science is hardly in a position to disprove such a theory. Why, then, do we consider it the best? Perhaps this is the most prevalent theory in the science community, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But they should know that it is an opinion, not fact, otherwise they are misled.

Ways to disprove common ancestor
1) Continued examination of fossil record: Did life start with multiple types of organisms?
2) Examine the gentic material: Is there indications that there are multiple lines that evolved seperate species?

[It is relatively easy to come to a consensus over the rules of mathematics. Quite another matter to agree on the rules of speculation in science. Neither you or I am in a position to decide. That is why debating is so important in science. Each part of science must be considered on its merit, not because some poobah says so. The rules of science do not say that the supernatural cannot be considered. It says that the supernatural cannot be measured.

But the rules of science deppend on an idea making predictions that are disprovable. What predictions does the existance of the supernatural make?

Jocabia

13-10-2005, 18:03

Yes, I understand your point. But let us say that one person rolled the die 100 times and got a random series of numbers. Now, what is the chance of that person rolling the die another hundred times and getting the same numbers? This is the difference. The result is specified. If the result is specified, then probability does become significant.

Why? Did life appear on earth in exactly the same way and evolve to exactly the same point twice? Last I checked evidence suggested it happened once. You really should work on your analogies. As the poster you replied to pointed out, probability of something happening only matters before something happening. What is the probability that the people who have already won the lottery would have won the lottery? 100%. There is no evidence to suggest that without some change in the causality that it would have ever happened any differently so it's 100%.

Next question since you like to do this before the fact stuff, like we don't already know the outcome. How many planets are there in the universe capable of sustaining life? How many of them reached the right conditions to create life? On how many of those planets did intelligent life develop? You don't know? Yeah, duh. I can tell you what the odds are that if intelligent life did develop on a planet and they were unaware of any other planet with intelligent life and they didn't have the answers to the questions above, they might think life is hideously unlikely too. However, unless you can show that only one planet was capable of life (there is already evidence that life is possible and may even have occurred on other planets, though as far as I know there is no evidence that life still exists or was as successful as this planet) and only one planet actually has life and only one planet actually followed the path we did, then your arguments about probability are specious. As far as you know there are an infinite number of people rolling the dice 100 times. Now what's the probability you get a specific number sequence?

Why not?

Because then it wouldn't be science, it would be religion. Science and religion do not have the same job. Science deals with the observable. Religion deals with that which falls outside of observation (and possibly how it affects that which can be observed).

Jocabia

13-10-2005, 18:10

For science it can, no, it must hold such a viewpoint: Science cannot accept inherently unexplainable as a cause for phenomena.
To be more accurate, it does not comment on the supernatural at all. Science does not care if the supernatural exists at all, it only does not accept it as a cause or result of anything since it is not observable or falsifiable. Nothing more, nothing less.

Science is not an atheist, it's an agnostic.

The Similized world

13-10-2005, 18:18

To be more accurate, it does not comment on the supernatural at all. Science does not care if the supernatural exists at all, it only does not accept it as a cause or result of anything since it is not observable or falsifiable. Nothing more, nothing less.

Science is not an atheist, it's an agnostic.
Incredible how poor a choice of words you managed to use. I get what you're trying to say here, but you can't say that science is agnostic. But it's not only completely messed up to use a poor, innocent word like that, it's deeply misleading for some of the more hardcore fundies. Not really a wise move that.

Jocabia

13-10-2005, 18:22

And there you're admitting that evolution supports certain religions over others, which it very much does. If evolution is biased towards certain beliefs, isn't that the government infringing on the rights of the students, and the parents of the students to believe in whichever religion they please?

Um, you could today decide that gravity doesn't exist and it is nothing more than sexual attraction between two objects and make it major tenet of a religion and then argue that teaching about gravity is going against religious freedom except all you would succeed in doing is disallowing the teaching of science in schools which is certainly in violation of religious freedom. Because you reject scientific evidence does not mean that all people have to or even that all Christians should. I believe that God gave us science and reason and expected us to employ both. You can believe whatever you like so long as you don't force me to believe it as well.

Religious freedom and the first amendment means that nothing can be taught in schools with the sole purpose of teaching religion. Evolutionary theory has the purpose of teaching people about scientific evidence and about observed phenomena. It serves another purpose than addressing your beliefs. In fact any effect on your beliefs is incendental and unavoidable and would be avoided were that possible. Teaching ID serves only to teach about unobserved phenomena for the purpose of furthering a particular religion.

Here's an example that goes the other way. The Bible is one of the most referenced documents in history with regards to fictional literature. So it is often necessary to teach stories of the Bible in order to help students understand the literature. However, the focus is understanding the literature not furthering the religion. If the religion is help it is incidental and unavoided and would be avoided where that possible.

This is the obligation of public institutions, to be agnostic. Not to be atheistic, but to simply ignore religion altogether except. When the Bible is referenced in literature and a teacher teaches about the reference it is treated exactly like all other literary references with no regard to religious or anti-religious objections. When evolution is taught in schools it is treated exactly like all other scientific theories with no regard to religious or anti-religious objections.

You would do well to learn the first amendment.

Jocabia

13-10-2005, 18:27

Incredible how poor a choice of words you managed to use. I get what you're trying to say here, but you can't say that science is agnostic. But it's not only completely messed up to use a poor, innocent word like that, it's deeply misleading for some of the more hardcore fundies. Not really a wise move that.

Agnostic, it says nothing of the existence or lack of a deity or any supernatural phenomena.

Agnostic (noun) - : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Adjective - 1 : of, relating to, or being an agnostic or the beliefs of agnostics

Science is not committed to existence or nonexistence of God or Gods. It holds the view that any ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable. If tomorrow observable proof of the existence of God was discovered (Hard to imagine what that would be) then the existence of God would be a viable part of scientific theory. Science simply deals with what is observable and falsifiable. It makes no subjective judgement of what it means in terms of the ultimate reality.

I will not allow some people's misunderstanding of a term keep me from using it. I will continue to use the language properly. I would use the term niggardly if it were appropriate in a conversation, without regard for the fact that some people do not realize it does not have ANY connection to any slur. I do use the term 'gyp' regardless of the fact that so few know its origins. I'm crazy like that.

Jocabia

13-10-2005, 18:31

Dempublicents1

13-10-2005, 18:47

Sometimes they are seperate from directly observable universe.

Not really. Take your superstring model you keep bringing up. As you said, it is meant to connect two theories - both of which were based upon the already observed.

Meanwhile, logically, anything within the universe is observable - if you know how to observe it.

What this theory had to do was explain previous observations and predict the outcome of future observations:

Exactly! That is exactly what I have been saying!

You cannot create science based only on the observations made today, it would eventually lead to the dead-end of science.

What a silly thing to say. You create a theory based on the observations made today, with predictions to test tomorrow. The theory, however, is not based on the speculation, it is based on the observations made today. Since we will make new observations tomorrow, and base the progression upon it, science will hardly stand still.

Especially in modern physics you have to first know what you are searching for before you can find it,

That is because most of modern physics stops at the realm of hypothesis. They do not yet have a way to test most of what they propose, so it has essentially become a philosophical discussion until such a time when testing can resume.

Like superstrings? Like quantum indeterminancy? You cannot measure or prove those things absolutely but you can use those models to describe current phenomena.

If those thing actually exist within the universe, they can be measured - and can thus be tested for. Meanwhile, we can use current phenomena - and whether or not they are consistent with the model - to test the model.

Science advances by tackling the unmeasurable as of yet or even the, by definition, unmeasurable.

The first part is true. The second is completely illogical. Anything that is, by definition, unmeasurable is also, by definition, outside the universe, and thus outside the realm of science.

No. While model has to describe (to an extent) what are the observations (today) it does not, I repeat, DOES NOT have to arise from the observations alone.

And just what else does it arise from? The predictions it makes are its result, not what goes into making it.

No, it isn't. Unless you like twisting the concept, ideas or thoughts behind words.

I have twisted nothing. As I have pointed out, it seems as if you are intentionally misunderstanding much of what I say.

No, testing can be created to support a theory, infact in most cases they are - While failure would not even debunk a theory, only modify it (if the test conditions preclude this), success would support it.

If you must modify your theory, you have debunked it and moved on to another. If your test does not debunk your theory, you have supported it. This is exactly what I have been saying.

Tests are neutral. They simply have to be. You cannot have a biased test and claim its results as conclusive.

You are the only one talking about biased tests. I am talking about logic. By logic, a test is designed such that it could possibly disprove the hypothesis/theory in question. If the test could not possibly do this, it is not a test of the idea at all.

Furthermore, your argument is purely philosophical in nature:

Science is a philosophy bound by the scientific method. I am simply pointing out what that means.

In science what has been sufficiently proven, or even sufficiently accurate, is taken as a fact to create new science. However, debunking the old science (not refinining it) would debunk all the science that has been specifically built for it.

Almost exactly what I have been saying yet again! I have to wonder why you are arguing with me when you keep repeating my points.

Yeah, while the modern model is in favour of ultimately absolutely untestable probabilistic model.

The current model of the atom is hardly untestable. It is through testing that we arrived at it, and it is through testing that we will continue to change it to match new data.

No it did not. It grew from secondary effects being uncompliant with the de-facto standard model.

Noncompliance of data with the theory = disproving the theory.

Of course it can. Especially in a non mathematical science (ie. not maths or physics) where there cannot be any absolutes ie. in sciences where the margin of measurement is truly insgnificant, for example: Why would behavioural science have anything to do with General Relativity?

Behavioural science is hardly non-mathematical. A behavioral biologist is held to mathematics just as any other scientist is. Her measurements must have statistical significance to mean anything at all. The models she uses are mathematics.

It is not you who does the defining.

Then why are you the one who can define "average human" and "normal situation" - rather nebulous terms themselves?

However my theory was not circular in nature. It just follows that if a cell needs aerobic metabolism, oxygen, then the organism needs gas exchange to produce more oxygen to the cells requiring oxygen.

You have said nothing at all about cells. You have said, "I will define average human and normal situation as a person in a situation such that the person needs oxygen. Therefore, I have proven that the average human in a normal situation needs oxygen."

You cannot make arbitrary definitions when it suits you.

I have made no definitions. I am using those of science.

Your house is an arbitrary concept.

In that case, so is every possible structure - including an atom.

He did **some** observations, then he formed his theory, then he did observations based on his theory and found them true. Heck, even 100% accurate to the measurable nature of the reality back then.

And this demonstrates that he didn't use observation....how, exactly?

Science does not progress through error alone.

Of course it does! If we didn't find that some of what had been held to be true was wrong, then there would be nowhere to go. We would already know everything!

I pity your limited viewpoint.

Why? Because I can make a distinction between scientific research and the technological applicatoin of that research? I am not saying that one is better than the other, or that one is more useful than the other. I am simply recognizing the fact that they lie in different processes.

So, how can any pure science be progressed through inherently inaccurate measurements?

Measurements become more and more accurate. Repeated measurement takes care of most of the error.

Interesting comparison and one could even argue that it's completely against your general viewpoint.

Not if one had any idea whatsoever what my viewpoint is.

So can pure science arise from inherently *inaccurate* assumptions?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by inherently inaccurate asumptions. If you mean that the scientist must assume something he already knows to be disproven, then no. If you mean that the scientist can assume something that he knows to be untrue, but his method and theory would work just as well if he did not make the simplifying assumption, then yes.

What defines an accurate theory?

One which is consistent with all evidence at hand is the most accurate theory.

Willamena

13-10-2005, 19:17

That is not what ID says or does. It makes a rational conclusion based on knowing the information, rather than on ignorance. Perhaps you ought to take the time to get familiar with the design theory. I mean that in earnest. Otherwise you will be posting foolish things like that one above.
Yes, Design Theory, or even Intelligent Design Theory, is based on information if it only looks at intelligent natural causes, but the supernatural element you have been discussing is not information. You could say that adding it achieves nothing.

Dempublicents1

13-10-2005, 19:22

This, however, is a common assumption, both in the science community and outside of it.

A common personal assumption, not an assumption on which any science based.

I believe it because I have encountered it the universities in three different countries. In this point, I have not been lying.

There is a large difference between a personal assumption and an assumption in science. You listed it as a common assumption in science.

If you look carefully, you will see that one of the points refers to the ''common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor''.

And?

It's not really the same. For one, we can do plenty of repeatable experiments to demonstrate that atoms exist. We cannot do this for the idea that all of life evolved from a single ancestor.

We absolutely can test this. If you think we can't. you really ought to look up what a test is.

Even so, plenty of people do research that is based on that assumption of a single ancestor.

They do this in the same way that physicists do research based on the assumption that the current model of the atom is correct. However, like those physicists are open to the possibility that the model of the attom is actually incorrect, biologists are open to the idea that the evolutionary model may be incorrect.

Cannot be brought into science in that science cannot be used to probe the supernatural.

If science cannot probe the supernatural, then science cannot posit the supernatural.

But that does not mean that we have to rule out the supernatural, or the interference of the supernatural.

We aren't ruling it out - we are simply not positing it.

Does it not make sense to you, that if a theory posits that all of life came from a single ancestor, that the supernatural did NOT create humans as humans?

If the theory is correct, yes - it would mean that.

Is this not ruling out the interference of the supernatural?

Not in the least. There are many, many ways in which the supernatural could interfere. All it does is say that the evidence suggests that it did not interfere in one particular way.

Strange that you say that the theory will continue until it is disproven, when you probably should know that the idea that all of life arose from a single ancestor cannot be disproven,

Of course it can. Any theory can be disproven. All it would take is data that is inconsistent with that theory and more consistent with another.

Why, then, do you repeatedly accuse me of lying, for goodness sake?

Repeatedly? Hardly.

Meanwhile, I have stated that you must be - as you have demonstrated that you know better. And yet every time you enter one of these conversations, you spout the same tired old lines that you admitted were wrong in the last debate.

It is relatively easy to come to a consensus over the rules of mathematics. Quite another matter to agree on the rules of speculation in science. Neither you or I am in a position to decide.

Of course not. The method decides.

That is why debating is so important in science. Each part of science must be considered on its merit, not because some poobah says so. The rules of science do not say that the supernatural cannot be considered. It says that the supernatural cannot be measured.

And the scientific method says that that which cannot be measured - that which cannot be tested - cannot be included.

The rules of science have to be based on logic and reason.

And they are.

That is not what ID says or does. It makes a rational conclusion based on knowing the information, rather than on ignorance.

Point to me the empirical evidence that logically leads to the conclusion of a designer that cannot be tested?

Perhaps you ought to take the time to get familiar with the design theory. I mean that in earnest. Otherwise you will be posting foolish things like that one above.

Been there. Done that.

Rather, eating some chocolate would not harm your health. No one has clearly demonstrated that it is beneficial to your health, other than causing a general feeling of pleasure that may help, e.g., a cancer patient who is struggling with depression.

Guess you missed the discussions of antioxidants then, eh? How exactly did you come across the articles on chocolate being good for you and not notice that it had nothing to do with a feeling of pleasure and everything to do with the presence of certain antioxidants?

Except that we cannot test the idea that all of life came from a single ancestor, although, amazingly, it gets invoked quite often.

Again, you demonstrate ignorance of what it means to test something. We absolutely can - and have - tested this theory.

Would that be your opinion based on what you know of ID?

It is based on what I know of ID, what you have said of ID, and what the creators of ID themselves have said of ID.

You have admitted more than once that the ideas of ID are based in the assumption that there is a designer - one that they have no evidence for and cannot (and you say do not plan to) test for. That, by definition, takes it outside of science.

The prevailing world view at that time was a special creation. People observed the world and generally thought that it fit in with a special creation.

...based upon nothing more than word-of-mouth and religious indoctrination.

The average person would have found the exceptional diversity of life to be evidence for a special creation.

Even though there is no logical process to lead them there. It is entirely a matter of faith.

Darwin, however, tried to change all of that. He took the same observations, and reinterpreted it according to his world view, that all of the diversity of life could be explained by natural causes.

You are aware, I would assume, that Darwin believed in creation?

That is not what I meant. I meant that we can rule out God being motivated by silly motivations. If I find something that I don't understand, I do not assume it to be silly. Rather, I assume that whatever the motivation God had, it would not be a silly one.

And yet you say that God could not have possibly have created the world to look old - fossils and all - because that would be silly. In other words, you have already stated that something, because it is silly to you, would be equally silly to God.

Once again, I suggest you find out more about the design theory.

I have found out more than you - obviously.

Mich selbst und ich

13-10-2005, 19:23

Pulled from the evil fox news site.

So again this is not about forcing christianity in school right?

The lawsuit will probably fail but if history repeats they will try again and again and again and again.....

Maybe it's the coming Dark Ages for the US?

------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167235,00.html

California Religious Schools Sue University Over Creationism
Saturday, August 27, 2005

LOS ANGELES — A group representing California religious schools has filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints.

The Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 schools, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday claiming UC admissions officials have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution. Other rejected courses include "Christianity's Influence in American History."

According to the lawsuit, the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta was told its courses were rejected because they use textbooks printed by two Christian publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books.

Wendell E. Bird, a lawyer for the association, said the policy violates the rights of students and religious schools.

"A threat to one religion is a threat to all," he said.

UC spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina said she could not comment, because the university had not been served with the lawsuit. Still, she said the university has a right to set course requirements.

"These requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed," Poorsina.

What is wrong with simply suggesting that there is a theory other then darwinism?

I'm not saying suggest ID as factual evidence, but I think that people should be able to know that there is an alternitive to evolution, instead of only hearing one side of the story, and not being able to make a fair decision.

Dempublicents1

13-10-2005, 19:26

The Black Forrest

13-10-2005, 19:37

What is wrong with simply suggesting that there is a theory other then darwinism?

I'm not saying suggest ID as factual evidence, but I think that people should be able to know that there is an alternitive to evolution, instead of only hearing one side of the story, and not being able to make a fair decision.

If ID could pass muster in science then there is no reason for it not being in the science class room. Problem is the fact it can't even pass the hypothesis stage......

GMC Military Arms

13-10-2005, 20:13

...

Calm down.

Mich selbst und ich

13-10-2005, 20:25

Desperate Measures

13-10-2005, 20:27

There is going to be no backing down on the part of science. Creationism and ID will always be sent to Sunday School, even if sometimes it takes a little longer than other times.

Brenchley

13-10-2005, 20:36

What is wrong with simply suggesting that there is a theory other then darwinism?

I'm not saying suggest ID as factual evidence, but I think that people should be able to know that there is an alternitive to evolution, instead of only hearing one side of the story, and not being able to make a fair decision.

If ID was a theory, then it would have a place in science - but ID is not a theory it is just a poorly revamped bible creation story.

The Black Forrest

13-10-2005, 20:41

Willamena

13-10-2005, 20:54

The Similized world

13-10-2005, 20:59

If ID could pass muster in science then there is no reason for it not being in the science class room. Problem is the fact it can't even pass the hypothesis stage......

You cant completly prove evolution either. That's why it's called the theory of evolution. You cant simply say that a theory cant be in the classroom because you choose not to belive it. I have no objections to evolution being in the classroom as long as ID is also offered, and, the kids have a choice of what they want to believe, and they are not told what to believe.

There's a vast difference in what we're talking about here. For something to be considered a scientific theory, it needs vast amounts of supporting evidence. Evolution has that.

The IDism has about as much supporting evidence as there is for me being the one supreme ruler & creator of everything & it's mother.

forgot you're the raving nutt

I, on the other hand, am starting to lean towards roasting all American Christians to death over a low flame..

Lemme start off with that. Only an insane person would wnat to roast people because of their belief. Dont give me this bullcrap "Oh, I was only meaning it as a joke". No mentialy sane person would even joke about killing innocent people.

As for your actual argument, what is so confusing with saying "There are two big theorys as to how the universe was created". I mean honestly, wtf? I am in 9th grade, and I wouldnt get confused it my teacher told me that, and I dont think my follow classmates would either.

And yet you proposed killing people for all sorts of shit in another thread, where you also advocated incarcerating homosexuals & arming violent criminals. And unlike me, you weren't just saying it from exasperation, you were serious. Fine, point conceded. I'm the raving loon here. I apologize for implying that you might not be the most stable individual. Incidentially, there's a whole category of humour for stuff about death & mutilation. Aptly named black humour. I only mention is so that you'll be able to avoid it. You should probably also be careful about the movies you watch & the games you play on your computer.

So what is so wrong about saying there are 2 big theories?

Fairly simple. It would be a flat out lie. There is one theory. And then there's a philosophical/religious idea. The two aren't related, and while the former has so much evidence going for it that discarding it is on par with discarding gravity or that the earth is round, the latter doesn't have one shread of evidence going for it.

IDism is every bit as plausible as the spaghettimonster or the pink unicorn, but not a bit more. If you think those two ideas are rediculous, then there's no reason you should pay attention to IDism.

There's another, much better reason for why IDism needs to stay out of science classes, but more on that below.

To fuck up their understanding of science & thus their opportunities for further education, not to mention their ability to be productive members of their society?

How would someone having seprate beliefs and seprate ideas"f*** up their understanding of science and not make them able to have further oppertunities for education? Honestly...

W T F
This is actually the important bit in this debate.

You're in 9th grade, yet you don't know why IDism doesn't belong in the science classroom. That's quite sad. Obviously, you hardly grasp what the scientific method is, so do you really think it would be constructive to disrupt your education & confuse your already sorely lacking understanding, by introducing a subject that has no ties to science?

Private schools all over europe get closed every year, because they fail to provide basic education for their students. Such students end up having wasted a lot of time withour aquiring any of the skills they need to progress in the education system, or handle jobs in general. To be blunt, they simply become useless indoctrinated individuals, incapable of contributing to their own happiness & their society, without undergoing extensive re-education.

How is that desirable?

I'm personally a huge advocate of educating everyone about world religions. I think some basic knowledge about them (and thus IDism as well) is important if people wish to have some understanding of a lot of the things that goes on, both nationally & internationally. But actual religious education is an individual thing. If you want to learn about it, seek out the relevant organisation. It's beyond the scope of normal public education to convey the religious teachings of every single faith in the world, and it's blatant discrimination to only teach one or a few. Arguably, it's an invasion on freedom of religion to teach anything at all. So the only workable solution is to refrain from evangelizing in public schools.

If you look at the social aspect of this, there's a good chance that students who aren't tought proper science in school will be unable to complete a higher education. They'd simply lack the skills required to follow & comprehend the courses.
That would stifle innovation, and eventually leave America as a developing country. Out produced & innovated by everyone else, and with a public unable to grasp what's gone wrong. Much like a large part of the present day middle east.

But of course, there's a good chance you think all this is desirable.

EDIT: I deleted my post. It was overly aggressive, so I apologize. Sadly, you responded to it while I deleted it. Had I known you'd respond, I would have left it there for reference.

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 21:09

Evolution is a theory.
theory a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses."

Intelligent Design and Creation Science are hypotheses. Not theories.

hypothesis a tentative unproven theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"

So far, evolution has survived decades of review.

Intelligent design hasn't passed any significant scientific muster - ever.

The Similized world

13-10-2005, 21:15

Intelligent Design and Creation Science are hypotheses. Not theories.

hypothesis a tentative unproven theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"
Which means it's not even a hypothesis. IDism isn't a theory about the natural world that seeks to explain anything. It's just a call for the gap-god, or the inexplicable.

Attempts to explain things doesn't invoke unanswerable questions. Saying "God did it" doesn't explain anything at all, it only makes any further inquery impossible, as it's impossible (and probably heresy) to question God.

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 21:27

Which means it's not even a hypothesis. IDism isn't a theory about the natural world that seeks to explain anything. It's just a call for the gap-god, or the inexplicable.

Attempts to explain things doesn't invoke unanswerable questions. Saying "God did it" doesn't explain anything at all, it only makes any further inquery impossible, as it's impossible (and probably heresy) to question God.

They can be hypotheses. The idea that Santa Claus exists is a hypotheses.

The people who like ID and creationism want a different explanation for the presence of varied life forms - not that they've come up with a rational, logical, or provable explanation.

So they remain unproven forever, and will remain mere hypotheses.

What I object to is people calling them "theories" as though they were proven. I also object to people who say they have equal scientific merit with evolution - which they most certainly do not.

The Similized world

13-10-2005, 21:41

They can be hypotheses. The idea that Santa Claus exists is a hypotheses.

The people who like ID and creationism want a different explanation for the presence of varied life forms - not that they've come up with a rational, logical, or provable explanation.

So they remain unproven forever, and will remain mere hypotheses.

What I object to is people calling them "theories" as though they were proven. I also object to people who say they have equal scientific merit with evolution - which they most certainly do not.
I actually disagree* with your terminology, but I may be wrong. I believe that your description of what a hypothesis is, was quite accurate. And as such, neither Santa, The Star Goat or IDism can be considered hypothesis.

None of them seeks to explain anything. They seek to prove the existence of an unobservable concept, which in turn imposes limitations on how the ideas can be explored.

Presents can be accounted for, so invoking Santa doesn't explain a phenomenon. It simply raises questions like "Where the bloody hell did the jolly fat bloke come from?!" which can't be answered.

It's pretty much the same thing with God & The Star Goat.

Sierra BTHP

13-10-2005, 21:44

I actually disagree* with your terminology, but I may be wrong. I believe that your description of what a hypothesis is, was quite accurate. And as such, neither Santa, The Star Goat or IDism can be considered hypothesis.

None of them seeks to explain anything. They seek to prove the existence of an unobservable concept, which in turn imposes limitations on how the ideas can be explored.

Presents can be accounted for, so invoking Santa doesn't explain a phenomenon. It simply raises questions like "Where the bloody hell did the jolly fat bloke come from?!" which can't be answered.

It's pretty much the same thing with God & The Star Goat.

A hypothesis is a "what if" idea.

"What if" the animals and plants on Earth are designed by God?

I'm not saying it's a good hypothesis, or even a provable one. They're seeking to explain where all the animals and plants came from.

It's a terrible hypothesis.

Jocabia

13-10-2005, 21:46

You cant completly prove evolution either. That's why it's called the theory of evolution. You cant simply say that a theory cant be in the classroom because you choose not to belive it. I have no objections to evolution being in the classroom as long as ID is also offered, and, the kids have a choice of what they want to believe, and they are not told what to believe.
The theory evolution is a scientific theory. If ID was a scientific theory then it would also be taught. Only ID'ers try to argue that the 'theory' in scientific theory means it's just a guess. In order to make it into a science classroom there is a muster one must pass called the scientific method. The scientific method is non-negotiable. Without the scientific method I could just decide that there are invisible purple elephants that only appear when no one is observing them and it would be required by taught in a science classroom. Instead it puts a couple of burdens on theories before they can be considered scientific theories.

The scientific method has four steps.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the hypothesis is falsifiable and it bears out in experimental tests (they don't falsify the hypothesis) then it may become a law or theory of nature.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

...

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Read, learn, incorporate into your world. Accept that anything that does not follow the scientific method and cannot be verified by experimentation or has not been verified by experimentation cannot be, will not be and should not be accepted by scientists. If it has not reached the level of experimentation that qualifies it as a theory through peer-review, etc., then it has no place shaping young minds in a public school system. To suggest otherwise it to reject science at it's very basis and, as another poster put it, would lead us back to another dark ages.

Most amusingly, if you're computer broke and one person told you that the problem was discovered through testing and observation to be in the video card and another 'technician' told you that it was possessed by demons, I wonder if you would have the first technician replace the card or the second technician perform an exorcism on your computer. I know which one you would do. Ironically, you agree with the scientific method, you just try to pretend you don't to advance your agenda.

The Similized world

13-10-2005, 21:53

Read, learn, incorporate into your world. Accept that anything that does not follow the scientific method and cannot be verified by experimentation or has not been verified by experimentation cannot be, will not be and should not be accepted by scientists. If it has not reached the level of experimentation that qualifies it as a theory through peer-review, etc., then it has no place shaping young minds in a public school system. To suggest otherwise it to reject science at it's very basis and, as another poster put it, would lead us back to another dark ages.

Most amusingly, if you're computer broke and one person told you that the problem was discovered through testing and observation to be in the video card and another 'technician' told you that it was possessed by demons, I wonder if you would have the first technician replace the card or the second technician perform an exorcism on your computer. I know which one you would do. Ironically, you agree with the scientific method, you just try to pretend you don't to advance your agenda.
Jocabia, I know I've said it before, but it bears repeating: You are brilliant.

Brenchley

13-10-2005, 21:56

There is a new advert running on TV in the UK for Guinness. This ad, they claim, marks a return to the famous GUINNESS campaign endline, ‘Good things come to those who wait’. It tells the story of mankind’s 3 billion year wait for the perfect pint.

You can see the advert in full at:-

http://www.whizzvidshosting.com/noitulove/BWread.html

BTW, I don't like the stuff, I just love their adverts :)

Jocabia

13-10-2005, 22:00

Jocabia, I know I've said it before, but it bears repeating: You are brilliant.

I try not to admit it but I thought of bringing up the computer point, I was pretty impressed with myself. Just to keep myself even, I'll show a little humility too. I REALLY suck at softball. My team won 24 to 15 and 18 to 12 yesterday and I went 2 for 7. I got on base on an error, a walk and two fielder's choice plays (one of which was a sacrifice) out of eight times at the plate. I technically went 1 for 7 (the walk) but we don't count errors against people. So I really do suck at softball and I now I feel much less impressed with myself. *sigh*

The Similized world

13-10-2005, 22:11

I try not to admit it but I thought of bringing up the computer point, I was pretty impressed with myself. Just to keep myself even, I'll show a little humility too. I REALLY suck at softball. My team won 24 to 15 and 18 to 12 yesterday and I went 2 for 7. I got on base on an error, a walk and two fielder's choice plays (one of which was a sacrifice) out of eight times at the plate. I technically went 1 for 7 (the walk) but we don't count errors against people. So I really do suck at softball and I now I feel much less impressed with myself. *sigh*
Arh, don't beat yourself up about it. Softball is incredibly boring if you're not smashed, so who cares? - And when you play it properly (yes, I mean drunk), the fuck-ups is what makes it fun ;)

Besides, noone's good at everything. I'm good at sports in general, but I'm hopeless at getting my point across here.
Incidentially, if it weren't for people like yourself, the Christians on these forums would be putting themselves in a very, very bad light, so there's always that to be proud of.

Letila

13-10-2005, 22:18

Soon, it will be a crimethink to believe that pi = anything other than 3.

Jocabia

13-10-2005, 23:00

Arh, don't beat yourself up about it. Softball is incredibly boring if you're not smashed, so who cares? - And when you play it properly (yes, I mean drunk), the fuck-ups is what makes it fun ;)

Besides, noone's good at everything. I'm good at sports in general, but I'm hopeless at getting my point across here.
Incidentially, if it weren't for people like yourself, the Christians on these forums would be putting themselves in a very, very bad light, so there's always that to be proud of.

Actually, I had a great time. I overran second because I don't know how to slide and it was a close throw, so I hooked my foot on it and ended up kind of in the splits. The second-baseman had to ask for a timeout so he could catch his breath from laughing. I just stood up, dusted myself off and bowed.

And thank you.

Mich selbst und ich

13-10-2005, 23:18

UpwardThrust

13-10-2005, 23:21

Mich selbst und ich

13-10-2005, 23:24

God is an unfalsafiable proposition ... as such any theory using it is also unfalsafiable

It can not EVER be a scientific theory
And as such has no more place in a SCIENCE class then playing tenis belings in a spanish classroom

Did you even read what I said?

they had the help of a superior being, not necessarly God, but, some sort of superior being.

And anyway, there is no way at all to prove or disprove God. So you can stop your unintelligent arguments.

Desperate Measures

13-10-2005, 23:25

UpwardThrust

13-10-2005, 23:27

there is no way at all to prove or disprove God. So you can stop your unintelligent arguments.
Did you even read what I wrote? that is exactly what I said

You have shown EXACTLY why god can not be part of ANY scientific theory

Willamena

13-10-2005, 23:28

Mich selbst und ich

13-10-2005, 23:28

Hypothesis and Theory are not synonymous.
And there's only one side to the science story.

Actualy, they are, I just proved it, why dont you link (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=hypothesis)

And intelligent design is science. Like I stated, its almost like evolution, but its saying it had the help of a superior being.

Just call it Guided Evolution ;)

Mich selbst und ich

13-10-2005, 23:30

Did you even read what I wrote? that is exactly what I said

You have shown EXACTLY why god can not be part of ANY scientific theory

Your sort of right. He cant.

But Guided Evolution, AKA Intelligent Design only states a superior being, not God, created Earth...

Mich selbst und ich

13-10-2005, 23:31

Evolution is not just a theory, it is a "Scientific Theory"; there is a difference in defintion, which was explained in earlier posts.

I'm sure they can see that there is another mind-set out there by speaking with people outside the science classroom. Inside the science classroom, they should be learning science.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=scientific+theory

^ All I have to say ^

Willamena

13-10-2005, 23:32

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=scientific+theory

^ All I have to say ^
Indeed. You have nothing to say.

Mich selbst und ich

13-10-2005, 23:34

Indeed. You have nothing to say.

No entries found that match scientific theory.

Maybe I have to make that a little more clearer for you.

Desperate Measures

13-10-2005, 23:36

Actualy, they are, I just proved it, why dont you link (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=hypothesis)

And intelligent design is science. Like I stated, its almost like evolution, but its saying it had the help of a superior being.

Just call it Guided Evolution ;)
hy·poth·e·sis (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

You must be able to note the differences, especially when used in the realm of scientific meaning.
Scientific Method:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

How can two words be synonymous when one includes the other in its definition?

Jocabia

13-10-2005, 23:39

Well, I just rechecked this forum, and I found some people saying some quite intersting things. I would like to point the following things out

People are saying "Well ID is a hypothesis, and Evolution is a Theory".

This is copied strait from Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=hypothesis)
"Text: an idea that is the starting point for making a case or conducting an investigation...see THEORY"

Um, I think you know the difference between a theory and a scientific theory but if you don't see this post.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9792623&postcount=1090

It explains what a scientific theory is and it even explains how lame the "it's just a theory" argument is. You are confusing the laymen's definition with the scientific definition.

As you can see, by definition, you anti ID people just admitted that evolution and ID are both theorys/hypothesises. With that knowledge, and since they are the two biggest theories/hypothesis in the US, they should be treated equaly as such.

Ok, if we're just using dictionary definitions with no context.

Sin - the 21st letter of the Hebrew alphabet -- see ALPHABET table

So the Bible is just suggesting that some actions are the 21st letter of the Hebrew alphabet. By definition, you've been all your life about sin being an crime against God. God created the alphabet for you to use. No go out there and use sin to its fullest.

People also get confused "ID is a morphed version of Creationism". Actualy, that's sorta wrong. Intelligent design(almost) exactly states the theory of evolution, EXCEPT that instead of the world morphing on its own, and people evolving on thier own, they had the help of a superior being, not necessarly God, but, some sort of superior being.

And the God part of theory is unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.

But since you've just stated that ID'ers agree with evolution and evolution doesn't eliminate the possibility of an intelligent guidance system, then there is no argument. We can teach evolution in the schools and you'll be happy because that will get your children that much closer to understanding intelligent design when they get home and YOU teach it to them like any other religious theory.

Look people, im not saying that we should read from the book of Genisis and ban all books on Darwinism. I'm simply saying maybe we should allow students to see that there is another idea, another mindset out there besides Evolution, instead of only giving one option, and leaning everything toward one option. I just think that we should give both sides of the story.

If you can create a falsifiable scientific hypothesis that can be tested and verified until it can be considered a scientific theory, then no will argue against teaching that alternative to the theory of evolution. Until then it will be relegated to the Sunday Schools and the dinner table.

Jocabia

13-10-2005, 23:42

Did you even read what I said?

And anyway, there is no way at all to prove or disprove God. So you can stop your unintelligent arguments.

What are you talking about? That is the argument. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power and as such there is no place for a higher power in science. "And anyway, there is no way at all to prove or disprove God."- you appear to agree with his 'unintelligent arguments' since you just stated his argument.

UpwardThrust

13-10-2005, 23:51

What are you talking about? That is the argument. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power and as such there is no place for a higher power in science. "And anyway, there is no way at all to prove or disprove God."- you appear to agree with his 'unintelligent arguments' since you just stated his argument.
I was wondering the same thing … he calls my argument unintelligent then restates it as his own …

UpwardThrust

13-10-2005, 23:52

hy·poth·e·sis (h-pth-ss)
snip yummage
Thank you ... :fluffle:

UnitarianUniversalists

14-10-2005, 00:02

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=scientific+theory

^ All I have to say ^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

here is an interesting article on theories. Notice the requirements for a scientific theory:

There is sometimes confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it

1) is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2) is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
4) has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
5) makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,
is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
6) is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's Razor.

So tell me, what predictions does ID make that can be used to disprove it? What tests has ID passed that could have proven it false?

These are the questions which are asked over and over again, with no answer. Why? Because there is no reasonable answer. ID does not make any predictions which can be tested, it has passed no tests.

Finally, for those design arguments, I have one question: What kind of engineer puts waste managment in the same building as the recreational and procreational centers? When you answer that without appealing to, "God works in mysterious ways," I'll take you seriously :p

Jocabia

14-10-2005, 00:05

I was wondering the same thing … he calls my argument unintelligent then restates it as his own …

Well, not to mention that unintelligent isn't really a word. It's not in Mirriam-Webster.

By the way, the Mirriam-Webster dictionary includes this under the entry for hypothesis -
synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hypothesis

Sort of throw his whole jacked-up argument out the window, huh?

Bruarong

14-10-2005, 13:30

Why? Did life appear on earth in exactly the same way and evolve to exactly the same point twice? Last I checked evidence suggested it happened once. You really should work on your analogies. As the poster you replied to pointed out, probability of something happening only matters before something happening. What is the probability that the people who have already won the lottery would have won the lottery? 100%. There is no evidence to suggest that without some change in the causality that it would have ever happened any differently so it's 100%.

No, I am not saying that life evolved exactly the same way twice. Only that in order for life to survive, it must meet certain basic requirements. These basic requirements for life act as a 'specification' for our idea of probability. In other words, in order for life to evolve, it HAD to have a certain number of developments to meet the same basic requirements that all of modern life satisfies. If evolution is indeed operates through random causes, then we can look at the probability of those causes causing life to arrive at a particular requirement. Alternatively, if evolution is guided by a law, that would then imply that, given the same set of conditions, the evolution of life would have occurred in exactly the same way, with the exactly same result.

Your use of the lottery analogy doesn't help here, because anybody can win. In biology, not any form of life can win, but only those that fulfill the specific requirements for life.

Next question since you like to do this before the fact stuff, like we don't already know the outcome. How many planets are there in the universe capable of sustaining life? How many of them reached the right conditions to create life? On how many of those planets did intelligent life develop? You don't know? Yeah, duh. I can tell you what the odds are that if intelligent life did develop on a planet and they were unaware of any other planet with intelligent life and they didn't have the answers to the questions above, they might think life is hideously unlikely too. However, unless you can show that only one planet was capable of life (there is already evidence that life is possible and may even have occurred on other planets, though as far as I know there is no evidence that life still exists or was as successful as this planet) and only one planet actually has life and only one planet actually followed the path we did, then your arguments about probability are specious. As far as you know there are an infinite number of people rolling the dice 100 times. Now what's the probability you get a specific number sequence?

As for life evolving on other planets, my guess is that if there is life there, it has to obey the same laws that we have here. Personally, I the evidence that I have seen for other planets that are capable of sustaining life are far from convincing. At best, all we have is possibilities. In order for a planet to sustain life (as we know it), it needs to fulfill several requirements, like temperature, oxygen, water, etc. Because there are some specifics for life, the probability of such a planet existing in our solar system can be calculated, based on what we know of our solar system. Of course, there is always the possibility that there may exist certain life forms that are completely unpredicted. In that case, that would be more like a lottery, because we don't know enough information to specify the requirements for such a life.

Because then it wouldn't be science, it would be religion. Science and religion do not have the same job. Science deals with the observable. Religion deals with that which falls outside of observation (and possibly how it affects that which can be observed).

I think you have altogether the wrong idea of religion if you think it deals with the unobservable, but that is by the by. You are suggesting that when one invokes the supernatural in an explanation, he is immediately outside of science. Such a view is not shared by all scientists. Your opinion, perhaps, and you are entitled to it. But when I asked you 'why', I wanted a practical reason for not invoking the supernatural in speculations about e.g. the origin and diversity of life. Just calling it a religion is not a good reason, in my book, because it amounts to classifying, but not demonstrating why the process of such a science would fall apart the moment it allows the supernatural to explain some observations.

Bruarong

14-10-2005, 13:47

How can you possibly make that claim?

Because it defeats the purpose of science.

Allowing the supernatural into an explanation for an observation defeats the purpose of science??? Not necessarily. Perhaps it can, just as invoking any explanation that results in sloppy science or prevents the search from continuing. But it doesn't have to be that way. Design theorists are trying to establish a designer based on knowledge of the information found in biology, not ignorance as many people seem to think. The purpose of all of science is to search for truth in the material world. If you consider the supernatural to be untrue, of course you will conclude that invoking the supernatural will impede science. But you cannot possibly use science to demonstrate that the supernatural does not exist, nor that it has interfered with the material world. Therefore, in the search for truth, you cannot rule out the supernatural. To do so would be to 'defeat the purpose of science'.

Bruarong I have a request. Nothing major or anything, but when you respond to a long list of points to a fellow debater, and it's been more than 24 hours since those points were raised, would you mind including your original comments as well? I for one felt tempted to respond to some of your responses here, but I can't be arsed to look through old pages in order to do it correctly.

Thanks in advance.

Right, ok, I shall attempt to modify my posts in order to accommodate your lack of 'arse' :)

Edit: Also, you keep talking about IDism as if there was some substance to it. If you feel there is, mind filling us in on it instead of just mentioning how we should check up on it? I've read at least a couple of hundred online articles about IDism, and so far I've yet to see any substance at all.

That is not a small request. Here I have been arguing for ID, though I know only a little about it. However, the challenge has been laid down. I shall do what I can. Patience is all I ask.

Crackmajour

14-10-2005, 13:53

Brenchley

14-10-2005, 14:01

<snip>
As for life evolving on other planets, my guess is that if there is life there, it has to obey the same laws that we have here. Personally, I the evidence that I have seen for other planets that are capable of sustaining life are far from convincing. At best, all we have is possibilities. In order for a planet to sustain life (as we know it), it needs to fulfill several requirements, like temperature, oxygen, water, etc. Because there are some specifics for life, the probability of such a planet existing in our solar system can be calculated, based on what we know of our solar system. Of course, there is always the possibility that there may exist certain life forms that are completely unpredicted. In that case, that would be more like a lottery, because we don't know enough information to specify the requirements for such a life.

For life as we know it to exist the requirements are fairly minimal. Water is needed and this needs, at least early in the development of life, to have a temp range that is not too close to freezing and not too hot either.

Early life certainly doesn't need oxygen, that is far to reactive, and anyway oxygen is a byproduct of life on earth and through most of earths history there was little free oxygen in the system.

Life does need energy. Sunlight can provide it, but until free oxygen exists in large enough amounts to allow an ozone layer to form there is the problem of UV radiation destroying cells almost as soon as they appear.

It now looks like it was almost certainly thermal and chemical energy the drove early life and it was many millions of years before anything other then single celled creatures evolved.

I think you have altogether the wrong idea of religion if you think it deals with the unobservable, but that is by the by.

No, it is a very important part of the debate. What do you thing religion observes?

You are suggesting that when one invokes the supernatural in an explanation, he is immediately outside of science. Such a view is not shared by all scientists. Your opinion, perhaps, and you are entitled to it. But when I asked you 'why', I wanted a practical reason for not invoking the supernatural in speculations about e.g. the origin and diversity of life. Just calling it a religion is not a good reason, in my book, because it amounts to classifying, but not demonstrating why the process of such a science would fall apart the moment it allows the supernatural to explain some observations.

Problem is that you cannot use the supernatural to explain things - it just doesn't work.

The Similized world

14-10-2005, 14:25

Allowing the supernatural into an explanation for an observation defeats the purpose of science??? Not necessarily. Perhaps it can, just as invoking any explanation that results in sloppy science or prevents the search from continuing. But it doesn't have to be that way. Design theorists are trying to establish a designer based on knowledge of the information found in biology, not ignorance as many people seem to think. The purpose of all of science is to search for truth in the material world. If you consider the supernatural to be untrue, of course you will conclude that invoking the supernatural will impede science. But you cannot possibly use science to demonstrate that the supernatural does not exist, nor that it has interfered with the material world. Therefore, in the search for truth, you cannot rule out the supernatural. To do so would be to 'defeat the purpose of science'.
Actually, from what I've seen so far, all the Crea/IDists try to do is to shoot holes in an already existing theory & stuff God into those holes.

And that defeats science. Replacing questions, speculations & examinations with a simple "Don't Ask" isn't science & effectively ends science.

Science isn't quite the search for the untimate truth you make it out to be, and the method can only be applied to certain types of questions. You can't answer the question "Why God" with the scientific method. Not even the "How God". It can only help explain things that it can be used to examine. It's fairly simple. For example, you can scream "Why do the universe exist?" at the top of your lungs, but science won't be able to help you find an answer to that question. Perhaps it can one day explain HOW, but the untimate WHY is not something science can be applied to. That's what philosophy & religion is for.

If science could be applied to such questions, there'd be no need for neither religion or pholosophy at all.
Right, ok, I shall attempt to modify my posts in order to accommodate your lack of 'arse' :)
You don't have to modify your old posts. It was just a request for future posts. Thank you :)
That is not a small request. Here I have been arguing for ID, though I know only a little about it. However, the challenge has been laid down. I shall do what I can. Patience is all I ask.
Quite alright. I'm not gonna hold my breath though. From what I've seen, there's nothing to be found.

Bruarong

14-10-2005, 14:27

Originally Posted by Bruarong
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 suppose your 'breaking out' was always going to happen. It's a natural tendency of humans to break away from restrictions that prevent personal development. Perhaps the recent leaning toward ID is another version of a 'breaking out' from the 'strict evolutionary teaching that gets forced down people's throat'. At least that is the way I have heard some people refer to it, and to be honest, I often felt during my studies that I was being forced to believe evolution.

Originally Posted by Bruarong
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.

You missed my point completely. I know about the leading theory, but I am approaching the subject as one would who has never heard of either ID or evolutionary theory, in an attempt to demonstrate how irrational it is to accept either 'theory' ONLY the basis of empirical scientific evidence.

Originally Posted by Bruarong
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

No, I wouldn't suggest abolishment, but rather that we all understand what the word really means. It does not mean 'without a cause', but 'having causes that are too complicated to predict'. Therefore, the use of the word random implies that the user is faced with a limitation. Another sense of the word is that it is indiscriminate. Random mutations do have causes, but those causes have nothing to do with an organisms 'need' of a mutation to generate variety (in order to confer an advantage).

Originally Posted by Bruarong
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.

I was under the impression that the theory is more like all of the vertebrates evolving from a single vertebrate ancestor, rather than the mutations (necessary for a vertebrate to form from an invertebrate) happening in several thousands of invertebrate species. At any rate, all we have is a theory, and not evidence that can only be explained according this particular theory, thus this part of the theory does not have evidence, and therefor we cannot say that we are '100% sure that vertebrates developed from invertebrates through evolution'.

Bruarong

14-10-2005, 14:38

Appeal to Authority. Wikipedia may be a lot of things, but it is most certainly not a place to go for absolute definitions, especially on contentious subjects.

Not a source for authority, but of consensus. If we are to have a sensible debate, there needs to be some things that everyone (or most) agrees on. I have often found Wikipedia a good source for this (though I don't agree with everything I find there). Perhaps you could point out another source for consensus.

Sierra BTHP

14-10-2005, 14:48

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

Bruarong

14-10-2005, 14:52

But examining the Genes of various life indicate a common ancestor. Heck we share 75% of our genetic matterial with bacteria.

Bacteria only have a fraction of the DNA that humans have. How on earth can you quote such a figure? And does the similarity indicate ancestry or functionality. Even the evolutionists themselves conclude that much of the homology is due to convergent evolution, rather than divergent evolution. This is an admission that not every piece of homologous DNA is due to ancestry. If so, how can we be sure that any homologous DNA is due to ancestry, unless we have other evidence?

But science can't handle the suppernatural any more than math can handle psychology. There is what is known as meaningless questions: Did a supernatural force help create humans? I don't know, can you design an experiment to disprove a supernatural force? (remember in science nothing can be proven, it can only be disproven) No? Then it's a meaningless question just like, asking someone to prove mathmatically a person has Schizophrenia.

I have never suggested that science take up measuring the supernatural forces. What I am arguing for is allowing the supernatural to explain observations (e.g., design) based on our understanding of the information required for those observations. When we know enough to know that random mutations and natural selection cannot produce incredibly complex and robust information systems, it is logical to conclude that there must have been a designer. Whether that designer is inside or outside of nature is a question for philosophy, not the scientific method.

Ways to disprove common ancestor
1) Continued examination of fossil record: Did life start with multiple types of organisms?

I'm not sure how you would show that the fossil record could demonstrate this. My current understanding of the fossil record is that it can be interpreted by both evolutionary theory and design theory.

2) Examine the gentic material: Is there indications that there are multiple lines that evolved seperate species?

What? Do you mind developing this idea a little further? I find it hard to see where you are coming from.

But the rules of science deppend on an idea making predictions that are disprovable. What predictions does the existance of the supernatural make?

Which is why ID does not make predictions about the supernatural. It deals with the material world.

Sierra BTHP

14-10-2005, 14:55

To save time on the assertions by Creationists and the informed rebuttals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD100

Bruarong

14-10-2005, 15:05

The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact.

The only overwhelming, I suspect, is in the minds of those who want to believe that evolutionary theory can explain life and its diversity. I, for one, am not overwhelmed by the 'evidence'. I am not aware of any emotional blocks, exceptional stupidity, or unreasonable bigotry in my world view, as you apparently claim.

Evolution has been established beyond reasonable doubt in the minds of many, but that hardly places it in the category of fact.

What is fact is that you have just posted a post in which you have tried to paint the picture of evolution as fact and anyone who disagrees as having a big problem. That is what I would expect of someone with a strong faith in their opinion as the only true opinion, the only fact allowed.

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact.

What rubbish.

Bruarong

14-10-2005, 15:26

No, it is a very important part of the debate. What do you thing religion observes?

Problem is that you cannot use the supernatural to explain things - it just doesn't work.

Religion......well, I am not a theologian, but I reckon religion is about man's approach to God, or gods, or simply, the supernatural. It is man trying to understand the supernatural. Perhaps, to a certain extent, it is man trying to control the supernatural. I think that is an important distinction between Christianity and religion. In Christianity, God came to us. He allowed us to touch him, see him, hear him, and record his words, and eventually, to nail him to a cross. In that sense, Christianity in unlike all the other religions, because they are all about man's approach to God. In Christianity, we have God approaching man. So the Christian religion was one where humans observed God. They recorded it in a book, so that we can observe the words of God. Then we can get to know God for ourselves. When we know God, we can observe him, not necessarily with our five senses, but with our spirit. This does not mean that we depart from logic or reason. Neither is our faith the sort of 'hoping that his is there' form, but rather, it is the knowing and acting on that knowing. A non-christian can point to the christians as trying to observe the unobservable, but that is simply because they have not learned to use their spirit, particularly if they think that the only world that exists is that which can be detected by their five senses.

I realize that one can use the supernatural to explain many things, and that this tendency has tended to prevent the search for truth in the material world, particularly in the past. In that process, when someone doesn't understand something, he throws up his hands, and reckons that God must have done it, because he thinks it to be the easiest explanation. His conclusion, then, is based on ignorance, and results in the persistance of ignorance.
However, when a design theorist looks that the information found in life forms, and is able to rule out natural selection and random mutation as being adequate causes to bring about such a design, he does so on the basis of understanding, not ignorance.

Jocabia

14-10-2005, 15:33

No, I am not saying that life evolved exactly the same way twice. Only that in order for life to survive, it must meet certain basic requirements. These basic requirements for life act as a 'specification' for our idea of probability. In other words, in order for life to evolve, it HAD to have a certain number of developments to meet the same basic requirements that all of modern life satisfies. If evolution is indeed operates through random causes, then we can look at the probability of those causes causing life to arrive at a particular requirement. Alternatively, if evolution is guided by a law, that would then imply that, given the same set of conditions, the evolution of life would have occurred in exactly the same way, with the exactly same result.

Your use of the lottery analogy doesn't help here, because anybody can win. In biology, not any form of life can win, but only those that fulfill the specific requirements for life.

Really? You sure? How many times did life start on this planet? How many planets have the conditions to start life? See the problem you have is that there is only one planet, but you have no idea how many times the dice were rolled before the they got the right first number (how many times life started). You have no idea how many people are rolling the dice (how many planets have the right conditions to sustain life). And once life startes there are literally millions of rolls made until the right one is made for life to advance. And so on, and so on, until we get to where we are today. Natural selection is quite literally nature rolling the dice until it gets a number or numbers it likes.

As for life evolving on other planets, my guess is that if there is life there, it has to obey the same laws that we have here. Personally, I the evidence that I have seen for other planets that are capable of sustaining life are far from convincing. At best, all we have is possibilities. In order for a planet to sustain life (as we know it), it needs to fulfill several requirements, like temperature, oxygen, water, etc. Because there are some specifics for life, the probability of such a planet existing in our solar system can be calculated, based on what we know of our solar system. Of course, there is always the possibility that there may exist certain life forms that are completely unpredicted. In that case, that would be more like a lottery, because we don't know enough information to specify the requirements for such a life.

First of all, you do know there are many more planets than just our solar system and by simply probability there would likely be another planet with similar conditions to ours, yes? Even so, our assumptions on what life requires are based on the only life we've encountered on this planet. Does it occur to you that it wouldn't make any sense for life to develop here that could only survive on another planet?

I think you have altogether the wrong idea of religion if you think it deals with the unobservable, but that is by the by. You are suggesting that when one invokes the supernatural in an explanation, he is immediately outside of science. Such a view is not shared by all scientists. Your opinion, perhaps, and you are entitled to it. But when I asked you 'why', I wanted a practical reason for not invoking the supernatural in speculations about e.g. the origin and diversity of life. Just calling it a religion is not a good reason, in my book, because it amounts to classifying, but not demonstrating why the process of such a science would fall apart the moment it allows the supernatural to explain some observations.
Really? It doesn't deal with the unobservable? Can you show me God? Send me a picture. Send me a piece of him. Show me something that it can be objectively shown that he did. You can't. You know why? He's unobservable in the objective sense. I believe that He exists. You know what I base that belief on? Faith.

And yes, my opinion is shared by ALL scientists. The basis of science is the scientific method and if you do not believe in it or follow it, you are no scientist. Period. It's like saying you can be a Christian and believe Christ was Satan tricking us. It doesn't work no matter what name you use.

Now, seriously, do you understand the scientific method? It completely and wholly resides on the idea that all theories must be falsifiable (or no theories could ever be excluded and we would spend all of our time explaining why fairies making the stars is not a scientific theory). Once you decide that theories no longer need to be falsifiable then why criteria do you use to eliminate theories? How do you create a science that is anything more than philosophy? You would literally make is so we could not choose to not teach any theory people came up with. Why isn't magic as viable a theory as Intelligent design? We'll just teach magic as an alternative theory to everything? How did David Copperfield make the statue of Liberty disappear? Don't bother looking for an explanation, it's magic. Lalala, magic.

Again, when you can explain to me how excercising demons from your computer can fix it when it's broken, then I will accept that nonfalsifiable theories can be included in science. Until then they will be rejected because they cannot be and never will be supported.

Willamena

14-10-2005, 15:38

The purpose of all of science is to search for truth in the material world. If you consider the supernatural to be untrue, of course you will conclude that invoking the supernatural will impede science. But you cannot possibly use science to demonstrate that the supernatural does not exist, nor that it has interfered with the material world. Therefore, in the search for truth, you cannot rule out the supernatural. To do so would be to 'defeat the purpose of science'.
The purpose of science is to "seek truth" in the material world using the scientific method. The supernatural has no place in science, because it is not subject to examination by the scientific method. You cannot use science to demonstrate anything about the superntural, and that means that the supernatural should not be considered a part of science. To do so would defeat the purpose of science.

Jocabia

14-10-2005, 15:43

Allowing the supernatural into an explanation for an observation defeats the purpose of science??? Not necessarily. Perhaps it can, just as invoking any explanation that results in sloppy science or prevents the search from continuing. But it doesn't have to be that way. Design theorists are trying to establish a designer based on knowledge of the information found in biology, not ignorance as many people seem to think. The purpose of all of science is to search for truth in the material world. If you consider the supernatural to be untrue, of course you will conclude that invoking the supernatural will impede science. But you cannot possibly use science to demonstrate that the supernatural does not exist, nor that it has interfered with the material world. Therefore, in the search for truth, you cannot rule out the supernatural. To do so would be to 'defeat the purpose of science'.

See, here is your exact problem, exactly why you don't understand. If scientists accept supernatural explanations then finding out that the explanation is no longer necessary, the the phenomena it addresses has a perfectly natural explanation, is, in fact, ruling out the supernatural. As you said, this would be against the purpose of science. Science quite simply does not address the supernatural at all as an explanation. Could God have created life was asked of science. Science answered, we don't know, we don't care. It didn't rule out the supernatural, it didn't allow for a supernatural as an explanation. It doesn't address the supernatural as an explanation.

Look at it this way. If science considers demons causing illness a viable theory. The alternative theory is that tiny one-celled organism cause disease and multiply and spread from body to body. Suddenly we find these organisms and that they exist. The demons explanation is no longer needed and now science can accurately be considered an attack on religion rather than something leaves religion completely outside of it's purview. The worse problem is that even if bacteria and viruses cause disease, we technically can never rule out demons as a cause, becuase it's not really falsifiable. We really know that it cannot be the only thing that causes disease. Or maybe demons feed on viruses and bacteria and follow them. Next thing you know science is just religion with a fancy name OR science is the thing that is constantly proving religion wrong. Science has no place being either of these things. Science quite simply has no role in addressing religion.

Now in as far as the beliefs of a religion are natural, science can address them, like a world-wide flood. Otherwise it has not place either in ruling out supernatural phenomena in any way.

Willamena

14-10-2005, 15:47

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time... *snip*
Magnificent essay. Thanks.

Jocabia

14-10-2005, 15:57

So how do you teach ID in class?

I think it must go something like this:

We don't believe that evolution works.
We have an idea that something guides the development of life, but we have no idea what it is or how it guides the process.
shut up and stop asking questions...now read the bible.

All the sites or arguements for ID that I have seen are simply trying to find flaws in evolution and not in fact any sort of argument for ID.

Teaching in class would actually have to look something more like this if we were going to be accurate.

The teacher stands up before the class wipes his sweaty, chubby face and mumbles something about what the hell happened to education in America. He begins to address the class.

The scientific community, meaning the ones that follow the scientific method, are in universal agreement that the theory of evolution is a viable theory and as of yet has not be falsified even after a century of testing. It is the consensus of the scientific community that this is the most viable theory for the evolution of life on the planet.

There is an alternate *teacher holds up fingers and makes quote marks* theory that life could not have evolved in such a manner without an intelligent designer. There is actually no evidence for this theory and it is in fact impossible to confirm, but it basically hinges on anything that has not yet be adequately been explained in the eyes of the religious right must teach an *quotes marks again* intelligent designer could be the culprit.

We will examine both theories at which time you will completely lose faith in the ability of your school system to actually teach and you will be left unable to understand the very basis of science. This will leave you unlikely to be able to compete with children who went to schools where they taught science as science, and good luck working at McDonalds where you'll not be allowed to work the registers because you keep screaming that you think demons are making you ring in the wrong the prices. Only your theory no longer needs to be falsifiable so you cannot be fired.

Jocabia

14-10-2005, 16:02

Not a source for authority, but of consensus. If we are to have a sensible debate, there needs to be some things that everyone (or most) agrees on. I have often found Wikipedia a good source for this (though I don't agree with everything I find there). Perhaps you could point out another source for consensus.

Then it's appeal to popularity. Either way it doesn't hold up.

Willamena

14-10-2005, 16:15

Jocabia

14-10-2005, 16:21

The only overwhelming, I suspect, is in the minds of those who want to believe that evolutionary theory can explain life and its diversity. I, for one, am not overwhelmed by the 'evidence'. I am not aware of any emotional blocks, exceptional stupidity, or unreasonable bigotry in my world view, as you apparently claim.

Evolution has been established beyond reasonable doubt in the minds of many, but that hardly places it in the category of fact.

What is fact is that you have just posted a post in which you have tried to paint the picture of evolution as fact and anyone who disagrees as having a big problem. That is what I would expect of someone with a strong faith in their opinion as the only true opinion, the only fact allowed.

What rubbish.

You're 'right'. People made the same argument about the earth revolving around the sun and about many other descriptions of the universe. They were all 'right' too. He is correct that evolution has as much evidence for it and as little evidence against it as the earth revolving around the sun and the moon revolving around the earth.

The amazing thing about you is that you don't understand peer-reviewed. There has never been any evidence that has EVER been presented against the idea that current life evolved from previous life that stood up to peer-review. In other words, there were always glaring and obvious flaws in reasoning or method that could be shown.

ID's claims are based on a strawman that changes the mechanism of evolution to one that makes leaps and jumps rather than crawls slowly along a path. Then they are argue that it can't make those leaps and jumps. This has been pointed out over and over but people who don't wish to see the truth ignore the argument. There is no aspect of evolution that claims that life leaped from creatures with no limbs to having legs in one mutation. ID'ers like to claim it says this so they can argue against this. Strawman.

The second claim of ID'ers is that life cannot go from less complex to more complex because it violates the laws of entropy. Which would be true if the Earth was a closed system. Since it's not and we can't close the system and suggestion of such is ridiculous. Anyone who doesn't ignore a fact that most children are aware of can see that the sun is introducing an incredible amount of energy into the Earth as a system. To suggest entropy is an argument against evolution simply requires a blind eye to the actual system and the laws of entropy.

Face it. ID'ers are closing their eyes to the daylight and claiming we must offer that it's night as an alternative theory.

Bruarong

14-10-2005, 16:40

Really? You sure? How many times did life start on this planet? How many planets have the conditions to start life? See the problem you have is that there is only one planet, but you have no idea how many times the dice were rolled before the they got the right first number (how many times life started). You have no idea how many people are rolling the dice (how many planets have the right conditions to sustain life). And once life startes there are literally millions of rolls made until the right one is made for life to advance. And so on, and so on, until we get to where we are today. Natural selection is quite literally nature rolling the dice until it gets a number or numbers it likes.

I think your point is that no matter what the odds, given enough rolls of the die, the winning ticket will eventually come around. But that is not quite the issue that we were dealing with beforehand. I agree that, theoretically, rolling the die will eventually cover every possibility. But we are considering the likelihood or probability of natural selection and random mutation accounting for evolution according to the specified requirements of life. You were arguing that the probability calculations are not really valid because we are already holding the winning ticket in our hands. But now you are saying that once we have made the probability calculation, it isn't necessary anyway, because we have an infinite number of rolls of the die, and it should cover every possibility. But there is a problem with that argument. The supposed evolution of apes to humans cannot have involved an infinite number of rolls. The time is limited. It is generally thought to be less than 500 000 years, so the number of rolls cannot be infinite.

First of all, you do know there are many more planets than just our solar system and by simply probability there would likely be another planet with similar conditions to ours, yes? Even so, our assumptions on what life requires are based on the only life we've encountered on this planet. Does it occur to you that it wouldn't make any sense for life to develop here that could only survive on another planet?

What I meant to say was planets in our galaxy, not our solar system. My apologies.
It is possible that there is a different life form evolved on another planet. However, we are not in a position to calculate probabilites for such a life form evolving, if that life form is unlike those of earth, since we know nothing of it. We can't say if it is possible or impossible, through the scientific method. However, we can say that it may be possible, on the basis of philosophy.

Really? It doesn't deal with the unobservable? Can you show me God? Send me a picture. Send me a piece of him. Show me something that it can be objectively shown that he did. You can't. You know why? He's unobservable in the objective sense. I believe that He exists. You know what I base that belief on? Faith.

Religion does deal with the unobservable, to be sure, but it is not exclusively about the unobservable. It deals with the observable AND the unobservable. In a similar way, science deals with the observable and the unobservable. It indirectly measures the unobservable by measuring the observable. An example would be the atom. No one (to my knowledge) has observed the atom, but we know that something like the atom must exist, because we can observe that matter behaves as though it consisted of atoms.

And yes, my opinion is shared by ALL scientists. The basis of science is the scientific method and if you do not believe in it or follow it, you are no scientist. Period. It's like saying you can be a Christian and believe Christ was Satan tricking us. It doesn't work no matter what name you use.

No one is arguing over the scientific method here. The question is over allowing the supernatural in the speculations for the origin and diversity. The reason people give for not allowing it is that the science method cannot measure the supernatural. However, what has taken it's place is the assumption that natural causes can account for the diversity and origin of life. One assumption that cannot be measured is replaced by another one that cannot be measured. My criticism of this is that if you are going to replace the supernatural on the grounds that it cannot be measured, at least fill the gap with something that can.
As for the scientific method, it is not in a position to say whether the supernatural has or has not interfered with life. Thus it is stepping out of its own boundaries by claiming that the supernatural did not create humans. A more intelligent response based on the scientific method is that we don't know. The scientific method is not religion, atheistic, nor agnostic. It simply doesn't go there. The trouble is that people are having difficulty distinguishing what comes to us from the scientific method, and what comes from philosophy.

Now, seriously, do you understand the scientific method? It completely and wholly resides on the idea that all theories must be falsifiable (or no theories could ever be excluded and we would spend all of our time explaining why fairies making the stars is not a scientific theory). Once you decide that theories no longer need to be falsifiable then why criteria do you use to eliminate theories? How do you create a science that is anything more than philosophy? You would literally make is so we could not choose to not teach any theory people came up with. Why isn't magic as viable a theory as Intelligent design? We'll just teach magic as an alternative theory to everything? How did David Copperfield make the statue of Liberty disappear? Don't bother looking for an explanation, it's magic. Lalala, magic.

I feel fairly sure that I understand the scientific method. I am a scientist. To be sure, there is a lot more I could learn about it. But what is not so clear is the distinction between the scientific method and all the explanations and speculations and conclusions that are based on the data that is generated by the method. Reason is an important part of making conclusions. Reason is based on world view. World view consists of assumptions. Therefore, it will always be a difficult thing to separate facts that come from the scientific method, and someone's interpretation of the facts. There are plenty of ideas that are floating around the science community that are not falsifyable. But do people throw them away because they cannot falsify them? Hardly. For one, you cannot falsify the theory that natural causes explain the origin and diversity of life.

Again, when you can explain to me how excercising demons from your computer can fix it when it's broken, then I will accept that nonfalsifiable theories can be included in science. Until then they will be rejected because they cannot be and never will be supported.

Nobody is trying to support the idea that demons are breaking computers. The scientific method is, once again, not in a position to determine this. And the design theorists are not trying to determine the mind of God. They deal with experiments in which predictions are falsifiable. Furthermore, what you haven't seemed to realised is that science does consist of many ideas that are not falsified, and indeed, in some cases, nobody knows if they can be falsified.

Bruarong

14-10-2005, 16:46

Then it's appeal to popularity. Either way it doesn't hold up.

Rubbish, I'm appealing to consensus. If you disagree with consensus, feel free, but you should know that you are disagreeing with the majority. That doesn't make you wrong, of course. But my appealing to consensus in not to use the consensus to prove you wrong, but to find something that we can agree on, and thus engage in a sensible debate. If you insist on disagreeing with consensus, and if I want to continue a debate with you, then we must continue searching for something we do agree on. In this case, it was the major points of evolutionary theory. If you disagree with the Wikipedia definition, I suggest you provide your own.

Jocabia

14-10-2005, 16:54

Rubbish, I'm appealing to consensus. If you disagree with consensus, feel free, but you should know that you are disagreeing with the majority. That doesn't make you wrong, of course. But my appealing to consensus in not to use the consensus to prove you wrong, but to find something that we can agree on, and thus engage in a sensible debate. If you insist on disagreeing with consensus, and if I want to continue a debate with you, then we must continue searching for something we do agree on. In this case, it was the major points of evolutionary theory. If you disagree with the Wikipedia definition, I suggest you provide your own.

Someone should look up appeal to popularity. For example, the majority of the country believes in God. That doesn't say anything about the accuracy of that belief.

The definition of evolutionary theory and the aspects of it have been provided for you NUMEROUS times in this thread. Your response generally resembles, nuh-uh.

Bruarong

14-10-2005, 17:02

You're 'right'. People made the same argument about the earth revolving around the sun and about many other descriptions of the universe. They were all 'right' too. He is correct that evolution has as much evidence for it and as little evidence against it as the earth revolving around the sun and the moon revolving around the earth.

Once again, you are entitled to your opinion. But you are wrong if you think your opinion is based on the scientific method.

The amazing thing about you is that you don't understand peer-reviewed. There has never been any evidence that has EVER been presented against the idea that current life evolved from previous life that stood up to peer-review. In other words, there were always glaring and obvious flaws in reasoning or method that could be shown.

There are several reasons for this. A big one, perhaps the biggest, is that most editors would lose their jobs if they accepted a paper that tried to present the idea that evolution cannot explain the diversity of life. If everyone in the community is biased, that bias will never be criticised. I well remember the pressure in my undergraduate days. I realised very quickly that asking sensible questions in the classroom that called the evolutionary process into doubt was considered in very bad taste and smacked of a lack of intelligence.

ID's claims are based on a strawman that changes the mechanism of evolution to one that makes leaps and jumps rather than crawls slowly along a path. Then they are argue that it can't make those leaps and jumps. This has been pointed out over and over but people who don't wish to see the truth ignore the argument. There is no aspect of evolution that claims that life leaped from creatures with no limbs to having legs in one mutation. ID'ers like to claim it says this so they can argue against this. Strawman.

I don't see the design theorists doing this at all. The have addressed the idea of both 'crawling' evolution and 'jumpy' evolution. Consider this excerpt below, copied from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

''The are many who believe that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual change but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation. This model is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases. The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism.''

The second claim of ID'ers is that life cannot go from less complex to more complex because it violates the laws of entropy. Which would be true if the Earth was a closed system. Since it's not and we can't close the system and suggestion of such is ridiculous. Anyone who doesn't ignore a fact that most children are aware of can see that the sun is introducing an incredible amount of energy into the Earth as a system. To suggest entropy is an argument against evolution simply requires a blind eye to the actual system and the laws of entropy.

I think their argument is based on what we observe. All around us, we observe that order tends to disorder. There is no reason to think that life is an exception, except that we have found a way to theorize that it might be possible (e.g. by describing earth as an open system). This, however, is a far cry from providing evidence. For me, it remains an explanation that cannot be falsified.

Face it. ID'ers are closing their eyes to the daylight and claiming we must offer that it's night as an alternative theory.

Hardly.

Jocabia

14-10-2005, 17:04

I realize that one can use the supernatural to explain many things, and that this tendency has tended to prevent the search for truth in the material world, particularly in the past.

Bingo. ID'ers are attempting to poke holes in evolutionary theory and then say since you guys don't know the answer let's throw up our hands and say, "God did it!" Let's see if you agree that this is bad idea.

In that process, when someone doesn't understand something, he throws up his hands, and reckons that God must have done it, because he thinks it to be the easiest explanation.

Oh, look, you agree it's a bad idea unless it's Christian ideology that supports your theories. You simply can't see or can't understand that this is precisely what ID is attempting to do. I suspect it's because you want it to be right. It's an attempt to explain something that, in your opinion, has not YET been explained. Just out of curiosity, what evidence would be sufficient for you to abandon the ID theory?

And you're COMPLETELY wrong about religion. Most religions believe they were directed by God. They think their religion came from exactly the same place yours and mine did, a higher power. Jews believe God spoke to Moses DIRECTLY. Muslims believe God spoke to Muhammed DIRECTLY. Romans believed that gods used to come down and impregnate their women and thus created their heroes. And in some religions, men and women that lived among them were gods. Many native American religions had a figure very similar to Christ including being the son of their god or gods. What you say sets Christianity apart actually settles it right in among other religions. If you can't see how illogical your argument regarding Christianity not being a religion is, then I'm afraid we are never going to help you understand that ID is not science.

Bruarong

14-10-2005, 17:08

Someone should look up appeal to popularity. For example, the majority of the country believes in God. That doesn't say anything about the accuracy of that belief.

I have already pointed out that I didn't use the definition to prove someone wrong. Thus I was not appealing to the Wikipedia definition as an appeal to popularity. I was simply looking for a consensus.

The definition of evolutionary theory and the aspects of it have been provided for you NUMEROUS times in this thread. Your response generally resembles, nuh-uh.

I don't recall reading any deliberate definitions of evolutionary theory (other than 'fact') on this thread. And I certainly don't recall giving such a response. You make like to demonstrate this if you wish.
Surely, if you disagree with the Wikipedia definition, it would be a simple matter to state exactly which part you disagree with, and how you would make it better.

Crackmajour

14-10-2005, 17:21

I don't see the design theorists doing this at all. The have addressed the idea of both 'crawling' evolution and 'jumpy' evolution. Consider this excerpt below, copied from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

''The are many who believe that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual change but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation. This model is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases. The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism.''

Except the punctuated equilibrium idea is quick relative to the periods of stability. It still takes millions (probably 10's of millions) of years to acheive they are not saying that species appear from now where ,but that there are periods where when there is greater opertunity for speciation, speciation happens more rapidly.

The comment about order to disorder is also not a very good point. Rain goes from disorder - droplets - to order - puddle all the time. Crystals form, things settle into odered shapes. Entropy is a messure of disorder on an atomic scale it is very difficult to apply it except in hugely over the top manner to anythiing of significant size.

As I have stated before you need to be able to teach kids a theory more than we have an idea but we have no idea how it works.

UnitarianUniversalists

14-10-2005, 17:23

Don't forget this dissorder to order, with only the theories of Gravity and wind resistance:

snowflakes (http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos/photos.htm)

Or should we advance the theory of Inteligent Design on behalf of snowflakes too?

Bruarong

14-10-2005, 17:25

Bingo. ID'ers are attempting to poke holes in evolutionary theory and then say since you guys don't know the answer let's throw up our hands and say, "God did it!" Let's see if you agree that this is bad idea.

I don't think that IDers do this at all. In fact, if you read my post carefully, you would find me saying that they DON'T do this. And yes, I do think that would be a bad idea.

Oh, look, you agree it's a bad idea unless it's Christian ideology that supports your theories. You simply can't see or can't understand that this is precisely what ID is attempting to do. I suspect it's because you want it to be right. It's an attempt to explain something that, in your opinion, has not YET been explained. Just out of curiosity, what evidence would be sufficient for you to abandon the ID theory?

I am not an IDer, not a design theorist, more like a creationist. I am really quite unfamiliar with their methods, just as I don't know that much about physics or chemistry. I believe in God, and I believe that he created the world, and that he created humans as humans. I realise that my belief is not based on the scientific method (otherwise it would not be belief). I realise that the position of ID is supported by having faith in a God, or a Designer. I also realise that it is impossible to be completely objective. But one must try to be as objective as possible, and thus to realise one's bias is the first step. I don't see that it is necessary for ID to prove itself right, at least not by proving the existence of a designer. What I would be more interested in is if the ID approach helped us discover more about our world than the evolutionary approach. As a scientist, I am interested in discovering truth in the material world, but I am not using my science to prove God. (Having said that, I do believe that my research of the material world tells me something about God.)

As for what would cause me to abandon the ID position, that is an interesting question. I'm not sure. Perhaps someone demonstrating a human evolving from an ape, perhaps, or something equally convincing. I think I would have to see the data for myself, and be in the postion to come to my own conclusion. I feel that my faith is not dependent on creation being true. So that if I ever came to the position like yours, I would still believe in God, as I suspect that you do. However, I am not prepared to depart from my position until I see the data that demonstrates that evolutionary theory is true. I simply refuse to believe in the opinions of other scientists. I would much rather believe the Biblical account until I have evidence otherwise.

Incidentally, what would it take for you to abandon your acceptance of the evolutionary theory?

And you're COMPLETELY wrong about religion. Most religions believe they were directed by God. They think their religion came from exactly the same place yours and mine did, a higher power. Jews believe God spoke to Moses DIRECTLY. Muslims believe God spoke to Muhammed DIRECTLY. Romans believed that gods used to come down and impregnate their women and thus created their heroes. And in some religions, men and women that lived among them were gods. Many native American religions had a figure very similar to Christ including being the son of their god or gods. What you say sets Christianity apart actually settles it right in among other religions. If you can't see how illogical your argument regarding Christianity not being a religion is, then I'm afraid we are never going to help you understand that ID is not science.

But Christianity is the only religion where you do not have to work for your salvation. We believe that it is the trademark of God, where He saves us according to our faith, not our works, according to His grace, not our ability to do the right thing 100% of the time.

Brenchley

14-10-2005, 17:31

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.

I was under the impression that the theory is more like all of the vertebrates evolving from a single vertebrate ancestor, rather than the mutations (necessary for a vertebrate to form from an invertebrate) happening in several thousands of invertebrate species. At any rate, all we have is a theory, and not evidence that can only be explained according this particular theory, thus this part of the theory does not have evidence, and therefor we cannot say that we are '100% sure that vertebrates developed from invertebrates through evolution'.

Note that I said "at least one" not thousands.

There are a number of ways in which the backbone could have come about, and there are many cases of totaly seperate development of traits. However, all the vertibrate species alive today do appear to have come from one line of decent. There is evidence that this may not have been true in the early days of the vertibrate explosion, but it is true today.

Jocabia

14-10-2005, 17:32

I think your point is that no matter what the odds, given enough rolls of the die, the winning ticket will eventually come around. But that is not quite the issue that we were dealing with beforehand. I agree that, theoretically, rolling the die will eventually cover every possibility. But we are considering the likelihood or probability of natural selection and random mutation accounting for evolution according to the specified requirements of life. You were arguing that the probability calculations are not really valid because we are already holding the winning ticket in our hands. But now you are saying that once we have made the probability calculation, it isn't necessary anyway, because we have an infinite number of rolls of the die, and it should cover every possibility. But there is a problem with that argument. The supposed evolution of apes to humans cannot have involved an infinite number of rolls. The time is limited. It is generally thought to be less than 500 000 years, so the number of rolls cannot be infinite.

They don't need infinite. They only have to roll until they get it right and they have a large population to conduct those rolls. Also, you assume the only successful species going from other ape-like creatures to man (no one is actually arguing the we evolved from apes) would have to have been man. Man just happens to have been the one that evolved first. For all anyone knows there could have been a dozen other successful mutations had they happened. Had man been unsuccessful something else would have replaced it. Your chance theories require one to ignore the actual nature of evolution.

What I meant to say was planets in our galaxy, not our solar system. My apologies.

There are more planets than just our galaxy. Still applies.

[QUOTE=Bruarong]It is possible that there is a different life form evolved on another planet. However, we are not in a position to calculate probabilites for such a life form evolving, if that life form is unlike those of earth, since we know nothing of it. We can't say if it is possible or impossible, through the scientific method. However, we can say that it may be possible, on the basis of philosophy.

What we can say is that there is no basis for the belief that Earth is the only planet that is capable or was ever capable of life or that life only appeared on earth once. Therefore it CANNOT be a basis for refuting biogenesis (which is not evolution).

Religion does deal with the unobservable, to be sure, but it is not exclusively about the unobservable. It deals with the observable AND the unobservable. In a similar way, science deals with the observable and the unobservable. It indirectly measures the unobservable by measuring the observable. An example would be the atom. No one (to my knowledge) has observed the atom, but we know that something like the atom must exist, because we can observe that matter behaves as though it consisted of atoms.

You don't understand observation, I say again. Observation is something that can be objectively witnessed or measured either directly or indirectly. Therefore, everything that falls under science is most definitely observable.

No one is arguing over the scientific method here. The question is over allowing the supernatural in the speculations for the origin and diversity. The reason people give for not allowing it is that the science method cannot measure the supernatural. However, what has taken it's place is the assumption that natural causes can account for the diversity and origin of life. One assumption that cannot be measured is replaced by another one that cannot be measured. My criticism of this is that if you are going to replace the supernatural on the grounds that it cannot be measured, at least fill the gap with something that can.

Wow, if you allow the unobservable into scientific theory you are most certainly arguing against the scientific method. Please read up on the scientific method and return.

There is no assumption of natural or unnatural causes. Science, however, only looks for causes it can observe. It accepts that some things may never be observed or found. Again, you are changing the argument to argue against it. Science in only looking at natural things is not assuming supernatural things do not exist. It simply does not deal in supernatural things. Therefore if anyone looks for a cause it has to, by the nature of science be a natural cause. Until that cause is found, no assumption about it are made.

As for the scientific method, it is not in a position to say whether the supernatural has or has not interfered with life. Thus it is stepping out of its own boundaries by claiming that the supernatural did not create humans. A more intelligent response based on the scientific method is that we don't know. The scientific method is not religion, atheistic, nor agnostic. It simply doesn't go there. The trouble is that people are having difficulty distinguishing what comes to us from the scientific method, and what comes from philosophy.

It doesn't say that. Strawman. The response is, in fact, we don't know. If we have not found direct evidence for something in science the answer is always we don't know. However, scientific hypotheses will always speculate a natural answer as the answer must be observable in order to worked upon by science. Doing otherwise would serve no purpose. This doesn't exclude supernatural involvement. In fact, supernatural involvement can't be excluded, thus it is not falsifiable, thus it is outside the realm of science. And round and round, we go.

Science is, in fact, agnostic. Look it up. Seriously, I'm trying to be polite because I admire what you're doing, but a little education would go a long way here. You seem to be confused about scientific theory, science, agnosticism, the assumptions of science, how hypotheses work, the evolutionary theory, what religions are and what they believe, and even Intelligent Design. It's really difficult to argue with someone who is not actually addressing what we are arguing.

I feel fairly sure that I understand the scientific method. I am a scientist.

Oh, come on. Where is your degree from? Are we just making things up now? Ok. I'm a ballerina.

To be sure, there is a lot more I could learn about it. But what is not so clear is the distinction between the scientific method and all the explanations and speculations and conclusions that are based on the data that is generated by the method. Reason is an important part of making conclusions. Reason is based on world view. World view consists of assumptions. Therefore, it will always be a difficult thing to separate facts that come from the scientific method, and someone's interpretation of the facts. There are plenty of ideas that are floating around the science community that are not falsifyable. But do people throw them away because they cannot falsify them? Hardly. For one, you cannot falsify the theory that natural causes explain the origin and diversity of life.

Show me any theory that states that? Show me any theory that says explicitly "there was no supernatural involvement in this process". You're just making things up. You clearly do not understand what you're talking about.

Nobody is trying to support the idea that demons are breaking computers. The scientific method is, once again, not in a position to determine this. And the design theorists are not trying to determine the mind of God. They deal with experiments in which predictions are falsifiable. Furthermore, what you haven't seemed to realised is that science does consist of many ideas that are not falsified, and indeed, in some cases, nobody knows if they can be falsified.

You're right it's not. Explain to me an experiment that can falsify that there is an intelligent designer? Tell me of one. As you know the Intelligent Designer is the crux of the theory.

I can sum up this entire argument in a couple of sentences.

ID'ers: But you can't say there is no supernatural involvement
Scientists: You're correct. That's why we don't say that. It's not falsifiable and has no place in science.
ID'ers: You do when you look for natural explanations.
Scientists: False. We cannot exclude supernatural involvement because it's impossible to do so. That's why it doesn't belong in science.

And so on...

As such scientist keep explaining what they are actually saying and ID'ers keep making assumptions and then arguing against those assumptions.

UnitarianUniversalists

14-10-2005, 17:53

I have never suggested that science take up measuring the supernatural forces. What I am arguing for is allowing the supernatural to explain observations (e.g., design) based on our understanding of the information required for those observations. When we know enough to know that random mutations and natural selection cannot produce incredibly complex and robust information systems, it is logical to conclude that there must have been a designer. Whether that designer is inside or outside of nature is a question for philosophy, not the scientific method.

1) We do not know that random mutations and natural selection cannot produce incredibly comples and robust information systems
2) It is not logical to conclude that there must have been a designer, the only logical conclusion is that the theory of Evolution is incomplete or wrong.

For instance, we discovered that Newtonian gravity could not explain the motion of the planet Mercury, did we assume that an angel was pushing it? No, we just said, hmm.... that's interesting, let look further. Eventually Einstein came up with General and Special Relativity which fixed that. Today Relativity and Quantrumn Mechanics make different predictions concerning a number of identical systems. Do we assume that angels are pushing planets or subatomic particles? No, we say our understanding is incomplete, this is the best we have.

3) What tests could you do to disprove a designer? I have offered one rather obvious (though tounge in cheek) test which it has failed (What kind of engineer puts waste manigment in the same building as the procreation and recreational centers?) There are tons of problems with the human body: We get cancer, we have blind spots in our eyes, DNA is not replicated and combined perfectly so we have birth deffects, our little toes are useless and easily broken, our imperfect bipedal form has resulted in lower back pain, extreme difficulty in childbirth, varicose veins, and arthritis.

I'm not sure how you would show that the fossil record could demonstrate this. My current understanding of the fossil record is that it can be interpreted by both evolutionary theory and design theory.

Not really, the fossil record indicates very much that there was singular types of life before advanced came.

What? Do you mind developing this idea a little further? I find it hard to see where you are coming from.

If there were more than one common ancestor, then evolution (guided or not) should have occured over more than one different lines giving us multiple very different gentic lines. Instead, there is only one.

Which is why ID does not make predictions about the supernatural. It deals with the material world.

What tests can you do to disprove it in the material world can you do to disprove it's predictions? I think ID would predict,
1) No blind spots in the eye
2) no unessisary organs which can be injured
3) a system of genetic exchange and transformation that was did not cause birth deffects.
4) Hemoglobin without affinity for carbon monoxide

And yet none of the predictions have come true.

Jocabia

14-10-2005, 17:54

So we can get past certain ridiculous misunderstands I'll go further that what Sierra posted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

In this you'll find that abiogenesis and evolution are different, that theory and scientific theory mean different things, etc. Evolution does not actually address the number of ancestors current life evolved from since that enters into the realm of abiogenesis.

G3N13

14-10-2005, 18:03

Not really. Take your superstring model you keep bringing up. As you said, it is meant to connect two theories - both of which were based upon the already observed.In both cases the theory came first before observation.

Furthermore superstrings according to you cannot be a scientific theory because they are not observable directly under any circumstance. However the theory is falsifiable by observing the effects of the effects of the strings and comparing their behaviour to what is expected from the theory.

Superstrings are a perfect example of a scientific theory that did not rise from empirical study and cannot be directly studied through empiricism.

Meanwhile, logically, anything within the universe is observable - if you know how to observe it. However logical that might sound it is not the case. In some cases you can only observe effects (or their effects) of pheneomena or not even them: There exists unstudiable things within this universe, for example black holes.

Exactly! That is exactly what I have been saying!No. What you have said is that theories are always *directly* drawn from observations.

While new theories have to explain the old observations, to a degree, they don't have to arise from current observations, agree with the current observations (ie. produce an equal result) or even be provable through direction observation at the time of their creation (or at all).

It's interesting to note that only in mathematics results must be conformant with theories accurately.

What a silly thing to say. You create a theory based on the observations made today, with predictions to test tomorrow. The theory, however, is not based on the speculation, it is based on the observations made today. Theories usually rise from speculation, 'what if', not from direct observation.
Since we will make new observations tomorrow, and base the progression upon it, science will hardly stand still.
It would if we would have, or even will, stop making new instruments that can measure observations.

Let's take stellar parallax:

A theory of an effect first proposed in antique times of an effect that would follow from Earth orbiting sun..while both of those apparent facts could be considered pure speculation back then and the effect itself went against observational facts.

It was first observed during the 19th century (1838, to be exact) and only because of advances in optical technology, or telescopes to be more exact. Now I ask you, why would anyone create an expensive instrument to study the apparent motion of a star throughout a year if there already wasn't a theory of stellar parallax? It would not have been observed unless there already was a solid theory to claim that this must be the case: Theory first, observations later.

They do not yet have a way to test most of what they propose, so it has essentially become a philosophical discussion until such a time when testing can resume.You can observe the effects of the phenomena described even if the actual cause is unstudiable.

Furthermore measuring changes the object measured.

If those thing actually exist within the universe, they can be measured - and can thus be tested for. Meanwhile, we can use current phenomena - and whether or not they are consistent with the model - to test the model.They don't have to exist within our observational universe: There are 6 dimensions too much.

The first part is true. The second is completely illogical. Anything that is, by definition, unmeasurable is also, by definition, outside the universe, and thus outside the realm of science.Thus you created an illogical barrier for science. We can take extra-measurable as a basis of a theory if it fits the observable part of universe: This is especially true in a case where time creates the observation barrier.

Let's take for a random example the Big Bang. There has been no one observing the big bang, however, we can look at the effects of the theoretical big bang and study if the observations projected by the theory fit the observations made.

And just what else does it arise from? The predictions it makes are its result, not what goes into making it.For example from mathematical induction or deduction.

For example the stellar parallax: If Earth orbits the sun then stellar parallax must follow due to simple laws of trigonometry or, vice versa, if stellar parallax is measured then it's a convincing proof for Earth's orbit around sun due to simple laws of trigonometry.

I have twisted nothing. As I have pointed out, it seems as if you are intentionally misunderstanding much of what I say.I order a class of semantics for you.

If you are adamant that science can only arise from direct observation then you are exclusively denying that other factors play a part in creating science.

If you must modify your theory, you have debunked it and moved on to another. If your test does not debunk your theory, you have supported it. This is exactly what I have been saying.No, modifying a theory does not debunk the basis of the theory - The idea it promotes. It only adds more detail to the theory, fleshes it out.

Let's take the stellar parallax: The mathematical foundation is absolutely correct, only measured values can change.

You are the only one talking about biased tests. I am talking about logic. By logic, a test is designed such that it could possibly disprove the hypothesis/theory in question. If the test could not possibly do this, it is not a test of the idea at all. No, a test is designed to TEST the theory: The usual expectation from a test is a positive result. And if the test produces a negative result the first thing to blame is not the theory, but the test procedure itself. If it is found valid then you start looking at the theory and seeking out whether values used are correct. Only if you make the difference between a theory and observed values irrevocable you debunk the *basis* of the theory.

A simple test is not enough to disprove, or prove, a theory: It can only support or cast doubt on the theory.

Science is a philosophy bound by the scientific method. I am simply pointing out what that means.Saying that science is absolutely defined by empiricism is a purely philosophical point.

Almost exactly what I have been saying yet again! I have to wonder why you are arguing with me when you keep repeating my points.Because you have a different concept of debunking: I consider debunking a theory only when the basis of the theory has been shown invalid, while you are willing to debunk a theory based on a single discrepancy on the observational data.

The current model of the atom is hardly untestable. It is through testing that we arrived at it, and it is through testing that we will continue to change it to match new data.It is inherently untestable: We cannot accurately test a probabilistic model.

This however does not conflict what you said.

Noncompliance of data with the theory = disproving the theory.No, it could only lead into redefining of the predicitions made by the theory, it would not (necessarily) debunk the basis of the theory which can (and in most cases will) remain unchanged.

Behavioural science is hardly non-mathematical. A behavioral biologist is held to mathematics just as any other scientist is. Her measurements must have statistical significance to mean anything at all. The models she uses are mathematics.Did I claim otherwise?

I merely stated that especially such a scientist can take approximations and "disproven" (by your definition) theories as a foundation for creating new science.

Then why are you the one who can define "average human" and "normal situation" - rather nebulous terms themselves?Because I'm willing to let them stand the trial by peers and I naturally meant an aspect of standard human and normal situation.

Can you do the same?
You have said nothing at all about cells.Cellular metabolism is one of the basis of my theory - It is one of the reasons why I can say what I said: I prove the need of gas exchange by, for example, the metabolistic need for ever replenishing supply of gas in cells. Overall, my theory has foundations supported by logics (process of deduction), chemistry (reaction chain), biology (cellular anatomy), anatomy (body structure and the functions of organs), physics (energy) and even mathematics.

You see, my theory is not the beginning nor the end of the theoretical pathway: I created, or could have created, my theory through using deduction alone without the need for any observational data per se.

Therefore you cannot invalidate my theory without invalidating the basis of the 'super-theories' first: My theory is 100% accurate deduction of the prevalent theories.

You have said, "I will define average human and normal situation as a person in a situation such that the person needs oxygen. Therefore, I have proven that the average human in a normal situation needs oxygen."Did you not read or understand what I wrote?

However my theory was not circular in nature. It just follows that if a cell needs aerobic metabolism, oxygen, then the organism needs gas exchange to produce more oxygen to the cells requiring oxygen.

[quote]Now if I define standard human in a standard situation as someone whose cells use aerobic metabolism and body temperature is near (34C-43C) standard human temperature then the first phrase is *ultimately* 100% accurate and only the set which it applies can change

I have made no definitions. I am using those of science.Science and observations can say that Earth is not currently flat.

In that case, so is every possible structure - including an atom.Indeed it is. But having an indivisible atom usually refers to indivisible nucleus and this is the meaning of the concept I've used.

And this demonstrates that he didn't use observation....how, exactly?Infact I'm pretty sure Einstein did not make any significant observations by himself. ;)

In anycase, my point is that while observations form the primary scientific testground they are not aleph or omega of science: There has been a lot of 'what ifs' out there which would not have happened if they would have taken observations as their only method of acquiring knowledge of the real world - You need theories before you can find the observation (or not find it thus debunking or modifying the theory).

Of course it does! If we didn't find that some of what had been held to be true was wrong, then there would be nowhere to go. We would already know everything!Science advances with BUILDING on previous blocks of scientific study. If this leads into adjusting variables of the previous theory or even completely debunking it, then so be it. However vast majority of science begins from a standpoint that (some of) the previous study on any particular field has been enough accurate to merit further research or even through wild insight as to how things might work.

Why? Because I can make a distinction between scientific research and the technological applicatoin of that research?No, because you limit the quest for science to a philsophical model of empiricism.

Measurements become more and more accurate. Repeated measurement takes care of most of the error.Measurements cannot reach absolute precision nor can they measure all things in a meaningful way. Throw in the fact that observing changes the observable thus you cannot just measure things and deduct things based on your measurements.

Not if one had any idea whatsoever what my viewpoint is.You're basically accepting unproven, or rather something that's proven as inaccurate, as a basis here while denying it elsewhere.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by inherently inaccurate asumptions. If you mean that the scientist must assume something he already knows to be disproven, then no. If you mean that the scientist can assume something that he knows to be untrue, but his method and theory would work just as well if he did not make the simplifying assumption, then yes.Finally something we can agree on.

However, what if the simplifying assumption could lead into a small discrepancy later? For example: If there's a reaction that needs a certain type of isotope in order to work, like normal water (H20) instead of heavy water (D20), and the presence of the latter would make the reaction not work, would describing the reaction needing water as a component be scientifically acceptable? Would proving otherwise scrap the theory, render the basis incorrect, or merely modify it or not even that as vast majority of water is normal water?

One which is consistent with all evidence at hand is the most accurate theory.A theory which is consistent with all the evidence at hand is not necessarily the most accurate or even acceptable theory.

For example ID: It explains everything to infinite precision. :P

Jocabia

14-10-2005, 18:14

I don't think that IDers do this at all. In fact, if you read my post carefully, you would find me saying that they DON'T do this. And yes, I do think that would be a bad idea.

Are you sure?

I am not an IDer, not a design theorist, more like a creationist. I am really quite unfamiliar with their methods, just as I don't know that much about physics or chemistry.

Oh, looky, you're not. You don't know their methods but then argue from a position of authority on... gasp, their methods. ID is all about poking holes in evolutionary theory generally by building strawmen. In this, you'd fit right in with them. Don't worry they don't know much about physics or chemistry, either.

I believe in God, and I believe that he created the world, and that he created humans as humans. I realise that my belief is not based on the scientific method (otherwise it would not be belief). I realise that the position of ID is supported by having faith in a God, or a Designer. I also realise that it is impossible to be completely objective. But one must try to be as objective as possible, and thus to realise one's bias is the first step. I don't see that it is necessary for ID to prove itself right, at least not by proving the existence of a designer. What I would be more interested in is if the ID approach helped us discover more about our world than the evolutionary approach. As a scientist, I am interested in discovering truth in the material world, but I am not using my science to prove God. (Having said that, I do believe that my research of the material world tells me something about God.)

What kind of scientist are you? What is your degree in?

I find it difficult to believe that a scientist could be as ignorant as you are about the most basic tenets of the scientific method. And yes I used the word ignorant intentionally becuase you've demonstrated that you are not stupid, simply guilty of intentional ignorance of the facts that dispute your not well-supported position.

As for what would cause me to abandon the ID position, that is an interesting question. I'm not sure. Perhaps someone demonstrating a human evolving from an ape, perhaps, or something equally convincing.

So in order to discount ID one must prove another theory that is currently held by NO ONE. There is no theory that says humans evolved from apes. Apes are a modern day creature. The belief is that apes and humans have a common ancestor.

However, I'll excuse that bit of ignorance and address the point. Science does not require a theory be replaced by a better theory. It requires that a theory position itself to be supported or not supported. In offering your request you prove to be no scientist. If you were you would have proposed an experiment that could falsify the ID theory rather than support an alternative.

I think I would have to see the data for myself, and be in the postion to come to my own conclusion. I feel that my faith is not dependent on creation being true. So that if I ever came to the position like yours, I would still believe in God, as I suspect that you do. However, I am not prepared to depart from my position until I see the data that demonstrates that evolutionary theory is true. I simply refuse to believe in the opinions of other scientists. I would much rather believe the Biblical account until I have evidence otherwise.

I believe that God created the universe and everything in it, including science, reason and logic. I enjoy all of God's gifts and wish the same for everyone. I don't believe that evolution says anything that rejects the creation of the universe, its laws or its inhabitants. God created all of these things and knew upon the creation of the earth that one day I would be debating this with you.

Incidentally, what would it take for you to abandon your acceptance of the evolutionary theory?

There have already been dozens of experiments that had their results been different I could not hold the current evolutionary theory to be accurate. I'm trying to think of any hole that hasn't already been addressed by experimentation. I guess I would have to see evidence of a species that has no ancestor species. While an ancestor species could eventually be found, it would certainly bring about HUGE questions in the current theory. Another way would if we observed through testing the leaps or hops that ID'ers claim are already a part of evolutionary theory. If those leaps or hops actually existed and could be witnessed they would negate evolutionary theory, not support it.

But Christianity is the only religion where you do not have to work for your salvation. We believe that it is the trademark of God, where He saves us according to our faith, not our works, according to His grace, not our ability to do the right thing 100% of the time.

False again. There are many religions where you are saved by faith. It's not a new concept. Your ignorance of those religions does not disprove their existence. You are aware there are literally thousands of distinct religions that have been held by groups of humans at one time or another. Many religions, in fact, actually believe that you needn't be saved at all. There is, quite simply, nothing to be saved from. You are comparing Christianity to only the handful of religions you are familiar with.

Your ill-informed views on religion aside, Christianity is a religion and nearly every aspect of it can be found in some other religion including salvation, a Christ-like figure, a God-like belief, a Satan-like belief, an angel-like belief, a demon-like belief, a flood story, etc.

All of this is off-topic however.

Dempublicents1

14-10-2005, 18:23

As for your actual argument, what is so confusing with saying "There are two big theorys as to how the universe was created". I mean honestly, wtf? I am in 9th grade, and I wouldnt get confused it my teacher told me that, and I dont think my follow classmates would either.

You are obviously already confused - as you are confusing a lay-theory with a scientific one. The problem with saying, "There are two big theories..." in a science class would be that there really is only a single big scientific theory. Meanwhile, you are also obviously confused as you seem to think that the theory of evolution has something to do with how the universe was created - it does not.

How would someone having seprate beliefs and seprate ideas"f*** up their understanding of science and not make them able to have further oppertunities for education? Honestly...

Having separate belief and separate ideas would not. Thinking that their beliefs and ideas outside of science would.

Jocabia

14-10-2005, 18:42

Once again, you are entitled to your opinion. But you are wrong if you think your opinion is based on the scientific method.

Care to support your argument or is 'nuh-uh' good enough for you. Shall I post the scientific method and what it entails. I should? Great, here goes.

Oops, I did it already. Read up.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9792623&postcount=1090

There are several reasons for this. A big one, perhaps the biggest, is that most editors would lose their jobs if they accepted a paper that tried to present the idea that evolution cannot explain the diversity of life. If everyone in the community is biased, that bias will never be criticised. I well remember the pressure in my undergraduate days. I realised very quickly that asking sensible questions in the classroom that called the evolutionary process into doubt was considered in very bad taste and smacked of a lack of intelligence.

You're kidding, right? If someone disproved evolutionary theory it would be on the cover of every newspaper and major magazine across the country not to mention every scientific journal in the country. No editor could possible squelch it, as you suggest. Zealots have been trying to disprove since it became a popular theory and have failed at every turn.

Ask your sensible questions here. We'd love to see them.

I haven't seen one regarding evolutionary theory that wasn't based on things that objectively fall outside of science and rightfully so. As you properly pointed out, science cannot make assumptions regarding the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. What you fail to see the difference between is the OPINIONS of some scientists (who, I believe incorrectly, claim that there can be no supernatural causes) and the accepted science that makes no claim that all causes are natural, it merely does not address anything it cannot observe.

Name an experiment that you believe would disprove evolutionary theory. If it's not been done and it makes scientific sense, I'll head over to the university right now, a pick up some friends. I'm sure they'd be happy to get a grant.

I don't see the design theorists doing this at all. The have addressed the idea of both 'crawling' evolution and 'jumpy' evolution. Consider this excerpt below, copied from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

''The are many who believe that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual change but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation. This model is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases. The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism.''

Rapid speciation is still a crawling change. It means that something about the environment changed to require a FASTER change then during times of stasis. FASTER in terms of evolutionary theory merely means it took hundreds of thousands of years to do what would otherwise take millions of years. Your argument requires one to be completely ignorant of evolutionary theory. The 'jumps' that id'ers refer to are complete biological characteristics developing in a single mutation which has nothing to do with evolutionary theory and has never been observed.

I think their argument is based on what we observe. All around us, we observe that order tends to disorder. There is no reason to think that life is an exception, except that we have found a way to theorize that it might be possible (e.g. by describing earth as an open system). This, however, is a far cry from providing evidence. For me, it remains an explanation that cannot be falsified.

False. If order tended toward disorder there would be no room for crystalization, birth, the creation of a forest where none existed before. I'll give you an example take an ecosystem and upset it by, say, destroying a particular species of animal. You have just created disorder in a system that was at equilibrium, order. Now watch as it again reaches equilibrium. Suddenly all of the parts of the ecosystem will find a new way to interact until they find a way to simbiotically rely on each other in a way that all prosper. If that's not order, I don't know what is.

And by the way, it's not an explanation that cannot be falsified. They are saying there is no reason for considering the alternative since there is no evidence for it. There is a difference. It's like you saying there are purple elephants that are invisible and me saying there is no evidence for them so I'm ignoring them. And you say, but that, um, unfalsifiable. It doesn't work that way. There is no need to falsify the opposite of a theory that itself is unfalsifiable or unsupported. To suggest otherwise is to completely turn science and logic on it's side.

Dempublicents1

14-10-2005, 18:43

You missed my point completely. I know about the leading theory, but I am approaching the subject as one would who has never heard of either ID or evolutionary theory, in an attempt to demonstrate how irrational it is to accept either 'theory' ONLY the basis of empirical scientific evidence.

I didn't miss your point at all. If someone had never heard either theory, but did understand the scientific method - then the idea that did not rely upon the supernatural would still be the theory chosen. It is not irrational or illogical to do so - as the process that you are using is defined, and the supernatural cannot be a part of it.

I have never suggested that science take up measuring the supernatural forces. What I am arguing for is allowing the supernatural to explain observations (e.g., design) based on our understanding of the information required for those observations. When we know enough to know that random mutations and natural selection cannot produce incredibly complex and robust information systems, it is logical to conclude that there must have been a designer. Whether that designer is inside or outside of nature is a question for philosophy, not the scientific method.

What you fail to see is that your "God of the gaps" argument is in error. It is not in the least logical to jump from, "Our current explanation doesn't seem to work," to "God did it." The only way you can possibly do that is through faith. If we were to find that mutation and natural selection could not have produced the structures we have (not a single one of which has been shown to be irreducibly complex - and irreducible complexity and robustness mutually exclusive terms), that would mean that we had the process wrong and we must look at the data again. It would not mean we immediately must jump to "God did it."

By this logic, when Einstein and other scientists noticed that Newtonian mechanics did not work in all cases, they should have just said, "Well, I guess gravity was just designed!" Of course, they didn't. They sought another mechanism - and came to one that did (and does) explain all current data.

Willamena

14-10-2005, 18:49

If we were to find that mutation and natural selection could not have produced the structures we have (not a single one of which has been shown to be irreducibly complex - and irreducible complexity and robustness mutually exclusive terms), that would mean that we had the process wrong and we must look at the data again. It would not mean we immediately must jump to "God did it."
Yeah. It would also mean that there was already a better solution that had been presented by empirical data. That is the only way they would be "found to not have produced the structures we have," because otherwise they are the still best alternative.

Dempublicents1

14-10-2005, 19:01

However, when a design theorist looks that the information found in life forms, and is able to rule out natural selection and random mutation as being adequate causes to bring about such a design, he does so on the basis of understanding, not ignorance.

Yes, because it is either the current leading theory or "IT WAS DESIGNED!"

This is exactly like how Einstein knew that it either had to be Newtonian mechanics or "IT WAS DESIGNED!" That's why he never proposed the theory of relativity.

I think your point is that no matter what the odds, given enough rolls of the die, the winning ticket will eventually come around. But that is not quite the issue that we were dealing with beforehand.

That's close to correct. The other issue is that there is no way to know how many "winning tickets" there might be. We cannot assume that just because a particular type of ticket won, that another might not have been able to win as well.

But we are considering the likelihood or probability of natural selection and random mutation accounting for evolution according to the specified requirements of life.

You have already committed several fatal errors. First, you seem to think that evolutionary theory covers the beginning of life - it does not.

Second, you have made the assumption that life-as-we-know-it is the only possible way that life could have come to be - an assumption that you cannot possibly back up.

It indirectly measures the unobservable by measuring the observable. An example would be the atom. No one (to my knowledge) has observed the atom, but we know that something like the atom must exist, because we can observe that matter behaves as though it consisted of atoms.

Look up atomic force microscopy.

No one is arguing over the scientific method here.

Yes, you are. You just like to pretend that you aren't.

However, what has taken it's place is the assumption that natural causes can account for the diversity and origin of life.

Incorrect. What has taken place is that examination of the data has led to a mechanism that can explain the diversity of life coming about naturally. This is a conclusion. In order to arrive at the theory of evolution, no such assumption had to be made. It grew out of the theory, not the other way around.

ID, on the other hand, grows out of the assumption that there is a designer. Thus, it is based in an unfalsifiable assumption.

As for the scientific method, it is not in a position to say whether the supernatural has or has not interfered with life.

....which is exactly why it cannot rely on an assumption that the supernatural exists or has interfered - which is what ID does.

I feel fairly sure that I understand the scientific method.

Obviously not, based on your posts.

Ruloah

14-10-2005, 19:02

-snip-

False again. There are many religions where you are saved by faith. It's not a new concept. Your ignorance of those religions does not disprove their existence. You are aware there are literally thousands of distinct religions that have been held by groups of humans at one time or another. Many religions, in fact, actually believe that you needn't be saved at all. There is, quite simply, nothing to be saved from. You are comparing Christianity to only the handful of religions you are familiar with.

Your ill-informed views on religion aside, Christianity is a religion and nearly every aspect of it can be found in some other religion including salvation, a Christ-like figure, a God-like belief, a Satan-like belief, an angel-like belief, a demon-like belief, a flood story, etc.

All of this is off-topic however.

Please provide examples of the "many religions where you are saved by faith" without works,
meaning without working for it by doing good deeds, by going to a certain religious place, by adhering to the pillars, etc...
following a particular set of religious rites, of commands and restrictions, and of ethical principles, such that if a man does these things he will be saved, go to heaven, get to the next level, reach paradise, find nirvana, become one with the cosmic all, etc...

Dempublicents1

14-10-2005, 19:26

In both cases the theory came first before observation.

Incorrrect. There was some observation. A hypothesis was devised. It was tested. It became a theory. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Furthermore superstrings according to you cannot be a scientific theory because they are not observable directly under any circumstance.

If they exist, they are observable. If they do not, they are not.

However logical that might sound it is not the case. In some cases you can only observe effects (or their effects) of pheneomena or not even them: There exists unstudiable things within this universe, for example black holes.

Observing the effects of something is observing that thing. When I watch a coffee cup going up and down, I am observing the human being holding it.

While new theories have to explain the old observations, to a degree, they don't have to arise from current observations, agree with the current observations (ie. produce an equal result) or even be provable through direction observation at the time of their creation (or at all).

They absolutely do have to agree with current observations. If they don't, they are already disproven.

Theories usually rise from speculation, 'what if', not from direct observation.

No, my dear. That is a hypothesis. Look up the scientific method.

A theory of an effect first proposed in antique times of an effect that would follow from Earth orbiting sun..while both of those apparent facts could be considered pure speculation back then and the effect itself went against observational facts.

What exactly are we talking about being speculation? The Earth orbiting the sun? Even in ancient times, that was based upon measurement.

You can observe the effects of the phenomena described even if the actual cause is unstudiable.

Anything within the universe is studiable. We may not be able to study it yet, but it is there.

They don't have to exist within our observational universe: There are 6 dimensions too much.

If those dimensions exist, they are measureable.

Let's take for a random example the Big Bang. There has been no one observing the big bang, however, we can look at the effects of the theoretical big bang and study if the observations projected by the theory fit the observations made.

And since the theoretical Big Bang was based on observation, and then we continue to test for the predictions made by that theory, it is a scientific theory.

If you are adamant that science can only arise from direct observation then you are exclusively denying that other factors play a part in creating science.

I never once said that all of science was direct observation - you have stated that. I said that science must be based in observation - and it is.

No, modifying a theory does not debunk the basis of the theory - The idea it promotes.

It debunks the portion of the basis that you are modifying.

No, a test is designed to TEST the theory:

And the only possible way to test a theory or hypothesis is to have a test that could possibly disprove it.

A simple test is not enough to disprove, or prove, a theory: It can only support or cast doubt on the theory.

If there is no error to be found in the test, and it is repeatable, it is enough to disprove a theory.

Because you have a different concept of debunking: I consider debunking a theory only when the basis of the theory has been shown invalid, while you are willing to debunk a theory based on a single discrepancy on the observational data.

That is because it must be debunked. If there is a discrepancy, then something is wrong with the theory. A new one, even if it is simply the old one with a few changes, is in order.

It is inherently untestable: We cannot accurately test a probabilistic model.

You are aware that probabilty comes out of testing?

Did I claim otherwise?

Yes. You referred to behavioral science as "non-mathematical".

I merely stated that especially such a scientist can take approximations and "disproven" (by your definition) theories as a foundation for creating new science.

And you are incorrect. If something incorrect is the basis - the foundation - of your ideas, the ideas are inherently wrong. Now, if you approximate because your approximation will not change the outcome - if you used the correct ideas it would still work - that is fine. But a theory cannot rely upon falsified ideas.

Therefore you cannot invalidate my theory without invalidating the basis of the 'super-theories' first: My theory is 100% accurate deduction of the prevalent theories.

100% accurate deduction of the prevalent theories != 100% accurate period.

Did you not read or understand what I wrote?

Yes, and the requote you just gave me says the exact thing that I said. "If I define average humans as X, I can say with 100% certainty that average humans are X."

Indeed it is. But having an indivisible atom usually refers to indivisible nucleus and this is the meaning of the concept I've used.

Hardly. The Dalton view of the atom - the indivisible atom - said that it was completely indivisible. The nucleus wasn't even a concept.

Meanwhile, Chemistry cannot rely upon the idea that the nucleus is indivisible either - it is not. It can make the simplifying assumption, in certain reactions, that it is - but must always be open to the possiblity of splitting.

Infact I'm pretty sure Einstein did not make any significant observations by himself. ;)

There aren't many (if any) scientists who ever make significant observations by themselves. So?

Science advances with BUILDING on previous blocks of scientific study.

And does so, as I have shown, by debunking previous ideas.

No, because you limit the quest for science to a philsophical model of empiricism.

I don't set that limit. The scientific method does (which is, of course, a philosophical model). There are other ways to study things - and these are used in other areas.

You're basically accepting unproven, or rather something that's proven as inaccurate, as a basis here while denying it elsewhere.

Not in the least. I never accept falsified data or processes as a basis. I do accept simplifying assumptions, so long as there is reason to believe that they can be made without significantly affecting the data.

However, what if the simplifying assumption could lead into a small discrepancy later? For example: If there's a reaction that needs a certain type of isotope in order to work, like normal water (H20) instead of heavy water (D20), and the presence of the latter would make the reaction not work, would describing the reaction needing water as a component be scientifically acceptable? Would proving otherwise scrap the theory, render the basis incorrect, or merely modify it or not even that as vast majority of water is normal water?

It would render the basis incorrect. The basis would then be changed so that it was consistent with data.

Of course, "This reaction needs water" is not an example of a scientific theory. A scientist wouldn't just describe what went into the mix, but would propose a mechanism. It would be that mechanism that would be disproven if it predicted that any water would work, but then found that only normal water would work.

A theory which is consistent with all the evidence at hand is not necessarily the most accurate or even acceptable theory.

So you think a theory that is inconsistent with the evidence is the most accurate theory? If I find a dead man with no punctures on him whatsoever with an empty pill bottle in his hand, I should theorize that he was murdered by being repeatedly stabbed?

For example ID: It explains everything to infinite precision. :P

No, it doesn't. In fact, it explains nothing at all. It says, "We don't understand this, so some designer must have designed it." It gives no description of the proposed designer, and leaves no way to test for said designer. In fact, it brings up many more questions than it answers - but the questions it brings up truly are inherently untestable, as they involve the supernatural.

Jocabia

14-10-2005, 21:02

Please provide examples of the "many religions where you are saved by faith" without works,
meaning without working for it by doing good deeds, by going to a certain religious place, by adhering to the pillars, etc...
following a particular set of religious rites, of commands and restrictions, and of ethical principles, such that if a man does these things he will be saved, go to heaven, get to the next level, reach paradise, find nirvana, become one with the cosmic all, etc...

Not even Christianity fits that bill. All salvation religions require some work or there would be no need for salvation. If everyone is 'saved' then there is no need to follow the religion or for the messiah or messenger to deliver the message of salvation at all.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_type_salvation.htm

"Whichever the case is, some effort or some actions are required by the believer in order to achieve deliverance - this is not an entirely free gift, otherwise there would be no need for a prophet to communicate the message of salvation to humanity. These efforts are also often tightly bound to systematized rituals and ceremonies which mark the long-term development of the individual as they move towards their ultimate salvation. This, in turn, has a tendency to systematize and rationalize the whole structure of a person's life and their worldview."

Christianity is of course currently the most famous salvation religion. It's not the only and it does not fit you bill in even a basic way.

Buddhism is focused on salvation that comes from reaching a particular understanding about the universe. Is that not the same thing that Christianity is?

Some branches of Hinduism also acheive salvation through particular revelations.

http://www.ubfellowship.org/archive/readers/parallel_divergent_religions.htm

"Brahmansim says that this is the experience of Absolute reality, and that to realize this as one’s true identity is salvation."

"If you desire to attain Buddhahood immediately, lay down the banner of pride, cast away the club of resentment, and trust yourselves to the unique Truth…When you fall into an abyss and someone has lowered a rope to pull you out, should you hesitate to grasp the rope because you doubt the power of the helper? Has not Buddha declared, “I alone am the protector and savior”? There is the power! Is it not taught that faith is the only entrance [to salvation]? There is the rope! … Our hearts ache and our sleeves are wet [with tears] until we see face to face the tender figure of the One, who says to us, 'I am thy Father'."

Islam also believe that you achieve salvation through faith, but like Christianity that once you have that faith you are expected to behave in a certain way.

There's three religions with followings present day number in the millions and in some cases the billions. Is that good enough?

Dempublicents1

14-10-2005, 22:34

Not even Christianity fits that bill. All salvation religions require some work or there would be no need for salvation.

Indeed. Only a strict interpretation of Augustine - ie. Calvinism - in Christianity leads to the idea that one does absolutely nothing to acheive salvation. And Calvinists essentially believe that God just picks random people out of a line on their way to hell and goes, "You, you, you, and you. You guys get grace. You can go to heaven when you die, because you are saved. Run along now...."

The idea that the believer must take the first step - in accepting the terms of salvation (obviously an action) is Pelagianism. It was condemned by the Catholic Church as heresy, but has actually become a part of pretty much all Christian doctrine - except for certain forms of Calvinism.

UnitarianUniversalists

14-10-2005, 23:38

Please provide examples of the "many religions where you are saved by faith" without works,

Not even Biblical Christianity fits the bill. Mathew 25:31-46: What are the questions Jesus uses to seperate the sheep from the goats? Did you feed an give drink to the hungry and thirsty? Did you visit the outcasts in prison? Did you care for the sick? Did you clothe the poor?

Those sound like works to me.

(Notice what questions are not asked: Do you believe in God? Did you accept me as your saviour? etc)

Zagat

15-10-2005, 23:55

But we are considering the likelihood or probability of natural selection and random mutation accounting for evolution according to the specified requirements of life.
The probability is only relevent if it is zero. I dont believe anyone has demonstrated that the probability is zero, so it's not relevent.

But now you are saying that once we have made the probability calculation, it isn't necessary anyway,
Probability is not that relevent in determining what has happened unless it can be demonstrated that the probability is zero.

But there is a problem with that argument. The supposed evolution of apes to humans cannot have involved an infinite number of rolls. The time is limited. It is generally thought to be less than 500 000 years, so the number of rolls cannot be infinite.
It doesnt need to have involved an infinate number of rolls. Human beings are no more improbable than any other species-configuration.

Religion does deal with the unobservable, to be sure, but it is not exclusively about the unobservable. It deals with the observable AND the unobservable. In a similar way, science deals with the observable and the unobservable. It indirectly measures the unobservable by measuring the observable. An example would be the atom. No one (to my knowledge) has observed the atom, but we know that something like the atom must exist, because we can observe that matter behaves as though it consisted of atoms.
The atom apparently conforms to the rules of material cause as we understand them. God, or 'some other designer of evolution/life' apparently does not. The atom is thus amenable to investigation via the scientific method, God or 'some other designer' is not.

No one is arguing over the scientific method here. The question is over allowing the supernatural in the speculations for the origin and diversity. The reason people give for not allowing it is that the science method cannot measure the supernatural. However, what has taken it's place is the assumption that natural causes can account for the diversity and origin of life.
You can allow whatever you like into your speculation, but if what you allow to form part of your speculations is not amenable to investigation using scientific methods, then what you are doing is not science, and doesnt belong in a science class.

One assumption that cannot be measured is replaced by another one that cannot be measured. My criticism of this is that if you are going to replace the supernatural on the grounds that it cannot be measured, at least fill the gap with something that can.
The supernatural has not been replaced, it simply isnt dealt with in science because science is not able to address it. Your criticism is unfounded, evolution produces predictions that can be falsified in possible tests that we can perform whilst 'the supernatural did it' does not, the result being that only one is amenable to scientific investigation.

As for the scientific method, it is not in a position to say whether the supernatural has or has not interfered with life.
Exactly, that is why science does not deal with the supernatural.

Thus it is stepping out of its own boundaries by claiming that the supernatural did not create humans.
Science doesnt make any such claim.

A more intelligent response based on the scientific method is that we don't know. The scientific method is not religion, atheistic, nor agnostic. It simply doesn't go there.
Which is why it doesnt deal with the supernatural! In fact in science we do go with the 'we dont know' line, that's why things cannot be proved in science but only disproved and why theories (such as evolution) are called theories and not 'proven truths'.

The trouble is that people are having difficulty distinguishing what comes to us from the scientific method, and what comes from philosophy.
All the more reason to keep science classes strictly 'science'. People are apparently already more confused than they ought to be.

I feel fairly sure that I understand the scientific method. I am a scientist.
:confused:

To be sure, there is a lot more I could learn about it. But what is not so clear is the distinction between the scientific method and all the explanations and speculations and conclusions that are based on the data that is generated by the method.
The scientific method is to generate observations that generate predictions that can be tested in tests that could falsify the prediction, to perform such tests and to reconcile the predictions and earlier observations with observations arising from tests.

The data generated is the predictions and observations.

Reason is an important part of making conclusions. Reason is based on world view. World view consists of assumptions. Therefore, it will always be a difficult thing to separate facts that come from the scientific method, and someone's interpretation of the facts.
Facts dont come from science, although science may enable facts to be known by us.
Regardless of how much world view may have resulted in false conclusions, science is still not able to investigate or deal with the supernatural, God, or 'some other designer'.

There are plenty of ideas that are floating around the science community that are not falsifyable.
Are there?

But do people throw them away because they cannot falsify them? Hardly. For one, you cannot falsify the theory that natural causes explain the origin and diversity of life.
You are confusing ideas floating around in science for an axiom of science. That natural causes can explain something is a necessary condition for that something being amenable to scientific investigation. Anything that can be explained as caused by natural causes cannot be investigated by science.

Nobody is trying to support the idea that demons are breaking computers. The scientific method is, once again, not in a position to determine this. And the design theorists are not trying to determine the mind of God. They deal with experiments in which predictions are falsifiable.
I dont see how...

Furthermore, what you haven't seemed to realised is that science does consist of many ideas that are not falsified, and indeed, in some cases, nobody knows if they can be falsified.
Of course there are axioms. It is those very axioms which excludes the supernatural from scientific examination.

Ruloah

16-10-2005, 01:21

Not even Christianity fits that bill. All salvation religions require some work or there would be no need for salvation. If everyone is 'saved' then there is no need to follow the religion or for the messiah or messenger to deliver the message of salvation at all.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_type_salvation.htm

"Whichever the case is, some effort or some actions are required by the believer in order to achieve deliverance - this is not an entirely free gift, otherwise there would be no need for a prophet to communicate the message of salvation to humanity. These efforts are also often tightly bound to systematized rituals and ceremonies which mark the long-term development of the individual as they move towards their ultimate salvation. This, in turn, has a tendency to systematize and rationalize the whole structure of a person's life and their worldview."

Christianity is of course currently the most famous salvation religion. It's not the only and it does not fit you bill in even a basic way.

Buddhism is focused on salvation that comes from reaching a particular understanding about the universe. Is that not the same thing that Christianity is? NO!

Some branches of Hinduism also acheive salvation through particular revelations.

http://www.ubfellowship.org/archive/readers/parallel_divergent_religions.htm

"Brahmansim says that this is the experience of Absolute reality, and that to realize this as one’s true identity is salvation."

"If you desire to attain Buddhahood immediately, lay down the banner of pride, cast away the club of resentment, and trust yourselves to the unique Truth…When you fall into an abyss and someone has lowered a rope to pull you out, should you hesitate to grasp the rope because you doubt the power of the helper? Has not Buddha declared, “I alone am the protector and savior”? There is the power! Is it not taught that faith is the only entrance [to salvation]? There is the rope! … Our hearts ache and our sleeves are wet [with tears] until we see face to face the tender figure of the One, who says to us, 'I am thy Father'."

Islam also believe that you achieve salvation through faith, but like Christianity that once you have that faith you are expected to behave in a certain way.

There's three religions with followings present day number in the millions and in some cases the billions. Is that good enough?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism (wiki Buddhism)
The aim of Buddhist practice is to end the suffering of cyclic existence, samsara (Pāli, Sanskrit), by awakening the practitioner to the realization of true reality, the achievement of liberation (nirvana). To achieve this, one should purify and train the mind and act according to the laws of karma: perform negative actions, and negative results will follow, and vice versa

This is work, effort, actions, aside from just believing.

According to the handbook of Christianity, you just believe, and you are saved. And you are not saved by coming to a particular understanding about the universe. If that was the case, all demons would be saved, because they understand, and they believe. But one must believe the correct thing. You are saved by believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our salvation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Core_Concepts (wiki Hinduism#Core_Concepts)
Virtuous actions take the soul closer to the divine supreme and lead to a birth with higher-consciousness.

Once again, more work=virtuous actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Six_articles_of_belief (wiki Islam#Six_articles_of_belief)
All Muslims agree on the following statements, which Sunnis term the Five Pillars of Islam, and Shia would consider two of the Roots of Religion and four of the Branches of Religion:
The Pilgrimage (Hajj) to Kaaba, Masjid al Haram, Mecca, is one of the five pillars of Islam
Enlarge
The Pilgrimage (Hajj) to Kaaba, Masjid al Haram, Mecca, is one of the five pillars of Islam

* Shahadah: The Testimony that there is none worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is his messenger.
* Salah: Establishing of the five daily Prayers (salah).
* Zakat: The Giving of Zakaah (charity), which is one fortieth (2.5%) of the net worth of savings kept for more than a year, with few exemptions, for every Muslim whose wealth exceeds the nisab, and 10% or 20% of the produce from agriculture. This money or produce is distributed among the Muslim poor.
* Sawm: Fasting from dawn to dusk in the month of Ramadan
* Hajj: The Pilgrimage (Hajj) to Mecca during the month of Dhul Hijjah, which is compulsory once in a lifetime for one who has the ability to do it.

Once again, more works.

Not just faith. Works. Therefore, my original posted question is still unanswered. What are the many religions that do not require works, actions, activities to be saved, reach nirvana, become one with the cosmic all, etc???

Anyone got a correct answer? Besides Christianity, that is?

Dempublicents1

16-10-2005, 01:24

You are saved by believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our salvation.

That belief - that leap of faith - is itself and action - a work, unless you believe that there is no free will in belief?

Jocabia

16-10-2005, 01:40

This is work, effort, actions, aside from just believing.

According to the handbook of Christianity, you just believe, and you are saved. And you are not saved by coming to a particular understanding about the universe. If that was the case, all demons would be saved, because they understand, and they believe. But one must believe the correct thing. You are saved by believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our salvation.

Once again, more work=virtuous actions.

Once again, more works.

Not just faith. Works. Therefore, my original posted question is still unanswered. What are the many religions that do not require works, actions, activities to be saved, reach nirvana, become one with the cosmic all, etc???

Anyone got a correct answer? Besides Christianity, that is?

Some people don't understand that there are different versions of the same religion, much like Christianity. I suggest you read up on it so you don't sound silly in the future. According to some versions of Christianity, salvation is random, others believe in works and faith and others in only faith. Many versions of Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism believe in works and faith and many believe in faith alone. More importantly one of the ones you linked is almost exactly like the version of Christianity you're talking about. You are saved by faith but that salvation inspires you to perform works (charity, good deeds, special understanding) or avoiding certain deeds (bad deeds, sin, ignorance).

And your argument about the special understanding of the universe requires one to pretend like Christianity is different than it is. There salvation is not just in understanding but living by that understanding, just like ours (Chrisitans). Demons have knowledge, not faith. We are saved by faith. So are other religions.

You may continue to hold the ideas about other religions that you do, but they show your prejudice and your lack of education on the subject. Your reply is the equivalent of "I'm not listening so you can't have answered my question".

GMC Military Arms

16-10-2005, 01:46

According to the handbook of Christianity, you just believe, and you are saved. And you are not saved by coming to a particular understanding about the universe. If that was the case, all demons would be saved, because they understand, and they believe. But one must believe the correct thing. You are saved by believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our salvation.

Nope.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html

There's a lot of passages in the Bible that say good works are needed as well as faith, most notably:

James 2:20
'But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?'

Revelation 20:12-13
'And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.'

Indeed, bizarrely, the arguement you present about demons is from the same section of the book of James, the verse before:

2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

James, however, concludes that the devils will not be saved because they do not do good works, not because they do not believe the correct thing. They do believe the correct thing, indeed, in Matthew 4, the Devil himself seems fully aware Jesus is the son of God!

Jocabia

16-10-2005, 02:18

Nope.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html

There's a lot of passages in the Bible that say good works are needed as well as faith, most notably:

Revelation 20:12-13
'And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.'

Shhhh... you're making really difficult to not make out like Christianity is entirely unique and that makes it absolutely have to be right.

I'll never understand people who feel the need to try to objectively prove something that admits that faith is required according to a basic tenet of the belief system.

Bruarong

18-10-2005, 15:44

The probability is only relevent if it is zero. I dont believe anyone has demonstrated that the probability is zero, so it's not relevent.

So, you are suggesting that a probability estimation is only relevant if it is zero. I don't believe you. Our law court rules people guilty or not guilty on the basis of probability. If there is a 1 in a 1000 chance that the not-guilty pleading of someone convicted of a felony is true, that person is most likely thrown in jail. We use probabilities all the time to make estimations. While, in science, we think that far lower odds are still somehow believable? I don't think so.

It doesnt need to have involved an infinate number of rolls. Human beings are no more improbable than any other species-configuration.

We don't know that. Many people THINK so, but such is not from the scientific method.
You only have to think about what it takes to generate a new gene. The theory goes that there needs to be a mutation resulting in a duplication of a gene, followed by mutations that change the gene DNA sequence, so that the new gene product function is novel, and somehow confers an advantage. What most people don't realize is that the complexity involved in such a process is enormous. Genes have to be regulated. They need promotors, ribosome binding sites, a start codon, a stop codon, and the right coding frame. Gene products (proteins) need to be folded, processed, transported, and in some cases, activated. Each of these steps often requires proteins, sometimes multiple proteins, even cascades. Regulation is vital at each step. And all this inside a cell that is almost solid protein 'solution', competing with millions of other proteins--thus interactions in the biochemical world have to be either specific, or involving huge populations of a single protein. And at the end, we need a protein that 'fits', that is functional enough to confer an advantage. But since most proteins to not confer an advantage by working alone, the new protein would most likely have to wait around for another new protein, or dozens of new proteins. Yes, we know the theory, but the probability of a new functional gene arising is very very low, and neither has science been able to provide a convincing example of this process. I consider it rather improbable.

The atom apparently conforms to the rules of material cause as we understand them. God, or 'some other designer of evolution/life' apparently does not. The atom is thus amenable to investigation via the scientific method, God or 'some other designer' is not.

Never have I suggested using the scientific method to study God. I have only been talking about speculations and explanations that invoke God.

You can allow whatever you like into your speculation, but if what you allow to form part of your speculations is not amenable to investigation using scientific methods, then what you are doing is not science, and doesnt belong in a science class.

Apparently, that is not enough to keep the theory of evolution out of the classroom. I still maintain that the scientific method is not in a position to test for macro-evolution. If you disagree, I suggest you provide an example. I realize that people have produced data and made observations that look consistent with the theory of evolution, e.g., the high level of genetic homology between humans and apes, but so long as these observations can be explained as being consistent with creation, such evidence can not be said to weigh in favour of evolutionary theory.

The supernatural has not been replaced, it simply isnt dealt with in science because science is not able to address it. Your criticism is unfounded, evolution produces predictions that can be falsified in possible tests that we can perform whilst 'the supernatural did it' does not, the result being that only one is amenable to scientific investigation.

I maintain that the supernatural has been dealt with by the evolutionary theory. Not by the scientific method, but by the theory of evolution. Thus my beef is not with the scientific method, but the theory of evolution. As I see it, so long as the current form of the theory of evolution prevails, which states that all of life came from a single ancestor, then this is restricting the interference of the supernatural to perhaps the creation of life (we cannot say), but certainly not the creation of humans. There lies the conflict.

Exactly, that is why science does not deal with the supernatural.

To be precise, science does deal with the supernatural. The empirical method does not. The prevailing theory of evolution does.

Science doesnt make any such claim.

A major point in the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory is that all of life arose from a single ancestor. This is another way of saying that the supernatural did not create humans as humans.

You are confusing ideas floating around in science for an axiom of science. That natural causes can explain something is a necessary condition for that something being amenable to scientific investigation. Anything that can be explained as caused by natural causes cannot be investigated by science.

I think it silly to assume that there are only natural causes. If, in trying to explain something, you rule out the possibility of anything other than natural causes, you make an unnecessary assumption. It would be far better to proceed with the investigation without making such an assumption, but allowing the possibility of supernatural causes AND natural causes. When it comes to attributing causes to an observation, one should be careful to rule out both natural law and randomness (two aspects of natural causes) before considering supernatural causes, just as we do when investigating a bomb blast (before it can be considered a crime scene).

I dont see how...

Recently, in London, there were several bomb blasts. At first, the detectives were trying to decide if the bomb blasts were caused by some natural explanation (e.g, a natural cause) rather than the act of terrorism. Quite logically, when piecing together the information, they first ruled out the possibility of a natural law (given the exact same conditions, the multiple blasts would have occurred again). In this idea, there was the possibility of a build-up of gas that created multiple blasts caused by electrical sparking, which accounted for several almost simultaneous blasts. The second possibility was not even considered, in this case, since matter is not usually in the practice of exploding randomly. The third possibility was that the bomb blasts were designed as an act of terror. Even before supporting evidence was found, this third theory was the most widely held opinion, because both the first possibility (law) and the second possibility (randomness) were considered inadequate to explain such an event.

My understanding of ID is that this is generally the process. It is only when law and randomness can be eliminated that intelligent design can be posited. When the intelligence cannot be attributed to a designer, then we are forced to return to randomness (such is the position of evolutionary theorists in trying to account for e.g. the creation of a new gene).

My argument is that I disagree with the ruling out of an intelligent designer, simply on the grounds that the scientific method cannot investigate the designer. Nor am I suggesting that we should try to investigate the supernatural with our useful little tool called the scientific method. It was never designed to do that. What we are seeing in evolutionary theory is a preference for naturalistic explanations on the basis of bias, not evidence.

Grave_n_idle

18-10-2005, 15:54

Jocabia

18-10-2005, 17:11

So, you are suggesting that a probability estimation is only relevant if it is zero. I don't believe you. Our law court rules people guilty or not guilty on the basis of probability. If there is a 1 in a 1000 chance that the not-guilty pleading of someone convicted of a felony is true, that person is most likely thrown in jail. We use probabilities all the time to make estimations. While, in science, we think that far lower odds are still somehow believable? I don't think so.

Science is not a court of law. You wish to charge that since something is 'improbable' it's impossible, but one we have no basis to decide what qualifies as improbable and certainly so long as its possible science should treat it as such.

How improbable is it that of all the people in the world you would end up talking to me? If we considered it from a beforehand approach the odds against it would astronomical, no? Yet, here we are. Improbable does not negate anything from an emperical point of view. EVER.

We don't know that. Many people THINK so, but such is not from the scientific method.

But you are asking us to accept that human beings were the only outcome rather than the outcome we just happened to get. That would be like the above scenario assuming that if I went on the internet the only person I could have ended up talking to is you. It not only has no basis, but it's unlikely.

You only have to think about what it takes to generate a new gene. The theory goes that there needs to be a mutation resulting in a duplication of a gene, followed by mutations that change the gene DNA sequence, so that the new gene product function is novel, and somehow confers an advantage. What most people don't realize is that the complexity involved in such a process is enormous. Genes have to be regulated. They need promotors, ribosome binding sites, a start codon, a stop codon, and the right coding frame. Gene products (proteins) need to be folded, processed, transported, and in some cases, activated. Each of these steps often requires proteins, sometimes multiple proteins, even cascades. Regulation is vital at each step. And all this inside a cell that is almost solid protein 'solution', competing with millions of other proteins--thus interactions in the biochemical world have to be either specific, or involving huge populations of a single protein. And at the end, we need a protein that 'fits', that is functional enough to confer an advantage. But since most proteins to not confer an advantage by working alone, the new protein would most likely have to wait around for another new protein, or dozens of new proteins. Yes, we know the theory, but the probability of a new functional gene arising is very very low, and neither has science been able to provide a convincing example of this process. I consider it rather improbable.

You consider it improbable. Science cannot be based on your assumptions. You have to prove that it is so unlikely as to be near impossible, but we don't have the information to do so. If you look at an series of events at a low enough level they would seem improbable if you assume the outcome was the sought outcome. There is one problem with that. How can you assume such a thing?

Let's stick with the same example. What are the odds that someone would discover electricity early enough in our history in order for people to start making electrical appliances. Then someone would have to invent the transistor. Then the cpu. Then the home computer. Then windows. Then make them advanced enough to support the activities of today. Then the internet. Then this game. And then of the billions of people on this planet you and I would have to find each other. Except all of those 'improbabilities' only count if you and I talking was the only possible outcome. If the only person who can win the lottery was the one who won the lottery a winner would be incredibly improbable. But when people buy millions of tickets twice a week it's fairly likely, no? We simply don't know how many workable outcomes there were so we can't speculate as to the likelihood. We also don't know how many failed outcomes there were so we don't really know how many times it took nature to 'get it right' so to speak.

So again, your probability suggestions are ridiculous since you don't have enough information to support them.

Never have I suggested using the scientific method to study God. I have only been talking about speculations and explanations that invoke God.

God has not place in science. Science quite simply cannot address the notion of an intelligent designer because it requires science to have knowledge it quite simply can't and will never have. All science is based on observation and no observation supports your claims for why God should be invoked. One must first accept a whole lot of completely unsupported and unfalsifiable claims in order to reach the conclusion that you are trying to reach.

Apparently, that is not enough to keep the theory of evolution out of the classroom. I still maintain that the scientific method is not in a position to test for macro-evolution. If you disagree, I suggest you provide an example. I realize that people have produced data and made observations that look consistent with the theory of evolution, e.g., the high level of genetic homology between humans and apes, but so long as these observations can be explained as being consistent with creation, such evidence can not be said to weigh in favour of evolutionary theory.

Um, yes, it can. Science looks at available evidence, with the acceptance that this is only the AVAILABLE evidence, and makes a conclusion. This is science's role. That conclusion must be something that can be tested and if appropriate falsified. Any conclusions that cannot be falsified or requires unsupported and unsupportable assumptions must be tossed out as not having a basis in science. If you're left with more than one reasonable conclusion then you test to see which is correct. If you left with only one conclusion then it is adopted until a more reasonable conclusion or evidence to negate the original conclusion is found.

Evolutionary theory and everything related to it is falsifiable and it is based on all available emperical evidence, ignoring none. The creation story of the Bible is neither emperical evidence nor a valid scientific hypothesis since the story is not testable and the theory is not falsifiable.

I maintain that the supernatural has been dealt with by the evolutionary theory. Not by the scientific method, but by the theory of evolution. Thus my beef is not with the scientific method, but the theory of evolution. As I see it, so long as the current form of the theory of evolution prevails, which states that all of life came from a single ancestor, then this is restricting the interference of the supernatural to perhaps the creation of life (we cannot say), but certainly not the creation of humans. There lies the conflict.

There is no conflict. You're making it up. A signal point of origin is not correct about the evolutionary theory. Second, it does not negate the possibility of supernatural interference in the creation of life, it just doesn't assume it. It also doesn't negate supernatural interference in the creation of humans, it also doesn't assume it. Is your idea of God so limited that He couldn't have known upon creation of the universe that His laws of nature would result in humans? I would not limit God in such a way and science does no address it all.

Science accepts that it's possible the revolution of the planets around the sun could possibly be God juggling, but since that can't EVER be verified, we have to look at observable explanations because this is the only way we can be able to predict things. It's a necessary part of science. If we assume supernatural causes then prediction and progress would be rendered impossible. Again, if I want to fix your computer but I allow for the possibility that demons have broken it then I am required to take the next step of hiring an excorcist. How is this a benefit to anyone?

To be precise, science does deal with the supernatural. The empirical method does not. The prevailing theory of evolution does.

You're wrong. You assume it does because you view as contradictory to your beliefs. If your beliefs were that babies came from storks you would probably view obstetrics as interfering the supernatural, but you'd be incorrect in that assumption.

A major point in the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory is that all of life arose from a single ancestor. This is another way of saying that the supernatural did not create humans as humans.

You're making that up. All life my have evolved from multiple ancestors. Strawman.

Also, there is lots of evidence that humans were not created as humans and none that they were. Do you expect science to just ignore it simply because your faith tells you they should?

I think it silly to assume that there are only natural causes. If, in trying to explain something, you rule out the possibility of anything other than natural causes, you make an unnecessary assumption. It would be far better to proceed with the investigation without making such an assumption, but allowing the possibility of supernatural causes AND natural causes. When it comes to attributing causes to an observation, one should be careful to rule out both natural law and randomness (two aspects of natural causes) before considering supernatural causes, just as we do when investigating a bomb blast (before it can be considered a crime scene).

Science doesn't rule out the possibility, it simply doesn't address supernatural causes. You seem to miss it. If your kids break a lamp and you don't see it do you go well before I blame one of my children I better make certain a ghost didn't do it or a demon or a fairy or whatever. Nope, you deal with what you can deal with and that is the natural causes.

Recently, in London, there were several bomb blasts. At first, the detectives were trying to decide if the bomb blasts were caused by some natural explanation (e.g, a natural cause) rather than the act of terrorism. Quite logically, when piecing together the information, they first ruled out the possibility of a natural law (given the exact same conditions, the multiple blasts would have occurred again). In this idea, there was the possibility of a build-up of gas that created multiple blasts caused by electrical sparking, which accounted for several almost simultaneous blasts. The second possibility was not even considered, in this case, since matter is not usually in the practice of exploding randomly. The third possibility was that the bomb blasts were designed as an act of terror. Even before supporting evidence was found, this third theory was the most widely held opinion, because both the first possibility (law) and the second possibility (randomness) were considered inadequate to explain such an event.

Wait, perhaps demons did it. Why, oh, why didn't they consider a supernatural possibility?

My understanding of ID is that this is generally the process. It is only when law and randomness can be eliminated that intelligent design can be posited. When the intelligence cannot be attributed to a designer, then we are forced to return to randomness (such is the position of evolutionary theorists in trying to account for e.g. the creation of a new gene).

Only law and randomness cannot be eliminated because the only way to do so is to make significant assumptions that you cannot verify EVER. You can't verify the improbability of us ending up here. You simply can't. So you can't base negating a theory on it.

And evolutionary theory does not rely on randomness. It's like this. I put water into a strainer. The water is just going to fall in the direction of gravity with some account of any velocity I gave it horizontally. Now where it hits the strainer is somewhat random it may hit a hole or it may hit the metal. However, the results are not random. Water cannot get through the metal. The water is permitted to be random by the nature of the strainer. The strainer gives the water order without any intelligence from the strainer. The theory of evolution is something that gives order to what would otherwise be randomness, like gravity does, like chemical reactions do, like subatomic forces do, like ecolological equilibriums do. These are processes that reach order without any intelligence and they've been observed. Does that mean that like the strainer they cannot have been created by an intelligent force? No. But we don't assign intelligence to the strainer. And in the absence of proof that intelligent source rather than natural processes created the strainer we must go with that which can be observed and verified or else everything we do will all have equal value, which is to say none.

My argument is that I disagree with the ruling out of an intelligent designer, simply on the grounds that the scientific method cannot investigate the designer. Nor am I suggesting that we should try to investigate the supernatural with our useful little tool called the scientific method. It was never designed to do that. What we are seeing in evolutionary theory is a preference for naturalistic explanations on the basis of bias, not evidence.

The designer is the basis of the theory and thus if it cannot be falsified it has not place in science. Maybe in quantum theory when we can't observe two data because observing one affects the other is because it's really demon preventing us from observing the other. We don't accept that simply because we haven't come up with a better explanation. Why? Because it could never be falsified which makes it ridiculous. According to you Roman mythology was science at the time since it was the best explanations available even though they were just made up stories that could never be verified.

Sierra BTHP

18-10-2005, 17:18

Science doesn't know everything, and I can prove it using the two-slit experiment.

It's not possible, for example, to say which of the two slits each photon goes through - not without interfering with the experiment in such a way as to make your measurement meaningless.

Willamena

18-10-2005, 18:02

Science doesn't know everything...
Thank goodness. And it never will.

EDIT: Isn't it odd? --that if it did know everything it would cease to exist?

Brenchley

18-10-2005, 18:24

Jocabia

18-10-2005, 18:37

Not a valid argument. The fact that we know the photon can go through either is a "known" to science.

So what? The fact that science doesn't know some stuff is known to science. Does that mean it knows everything? Just ignore the stuff it doesn't 'know' as invalid. Wow, and I thought fundamentalists were quick to dismiss anything that doesn't support them.

Dakini

18-10-2005, 18:38

Willamena

18-10-2005, 18:48

The photon passes through both slits simultaneously.
That sounds like a reasonable compromise.

Bruarong

19-10-2005, 10:11

You do not understand probability, my friend. You can SAY there is a "1 in 1000" chance that the felon is telling the truth... but it has no EMPIRICAL meaning. Unless you HONESTLY believe (and can support the idea) that one out of every one thousand felons is literally compelled to honesty.
Otherwise, all you are doing is debating statistics, no?

Debating statistics is precisely what I am trying to avoid. In many conclusions, for example, a scientist would not sit down to figure out the probability that an observation can be explained by such and such. Only if the probability is close to 0.5 would that sort of statistical analysis be relevant. Where the probability is far closer to zero, and it appears obviously so, then there is most likely little value in trying to calculate it exactly. This is what we do throughout much of science, I believe. Improbably explanations are not given much time, since most people are not interested in debating statistics. Because it also happens in a court of law (i.e. that the jury will rule someone guilty or not guilty on the basis of what appears to be obvious, rather than withholding judgement because there is yet a probability (albeit rather low) that their obvious judgement could be wrong), this sort of reaction to probabilities is typical.

And - so long as that statistic shows a probability that a thing can happen, that thing MUST be accepted as probable, no?

As I have pointed out, not necessarily. The probability of the thing happening is only considered if it is reasonably high. There is always the probability that water will run uphill, breaking what we know of gravity, but obviously it never gets considered because the probability is too low. Likewise, when we know that our current theories for the generation of a novel gene are too low, how is it rational that someone should consider that theory valid?

You considering it 'improbable' has absolutely no relevence.

However, you should know that science consists of a community of humans, all of whom have the responsibility of exercising their judgement to form conclusions about likely explanations, many of which are based on some sort of probability (calculated or not). Thus, my opinion of what is probable is as relevant as the 'next guy'.

I consider 'god' improbable. Does that mean he/she/it/they does/do not exist?

No, your consideration or conclusion does not contradict the existence of god. However, your opinion is valid, but unless it is based on empirical evidence, it remains based on your world view, or some sort of evidence that is not collected through empirical science. If you were able, based on scientific evidence, to associate some sort of probability of the existence of God, perhaps you would have an argument that could be considered by the scientific community. Until then, your example of the existence of God is not relevant to this debate.

I wouldn't even begin to dare to claim such a thing.

Then you are sensible.

How does science deal with the supernatural?

I think perhaps probability is not the only gap in your theory...

The following is taken from Wikipedia. This is the basis of the scientific theory of evolution.

''The theory underlying the modern synthesis has three major aspects:
The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
The manifestation of novel traits in a lineage.
The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.''

As the theory goes, all organisms descend from a single organism. The implication is that the supernatural (if it created life at all) could have created only one from which all of modern life emerged.

Strawman. Biblical accounts may require 'one ancestor'. Evolution does not.

On the contrary, not a strawman, but a major point in the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory. I agree that the theory does not rest on the assumption of a single ancestor. But it is currently there, nevertheless, and thus rules out the possibility of the supernatural creating humans as humans. In this way, the theory is placing a sort of limitation on the supernatural.

BackwoodsSquatches

19-10-2005, 11:12

http://www.venganza.org/images/wallpapers/noodledoodle1600_1200.jpg

I believe.

Bruarong

19-10-2005, 13:51

Science is not a court of law. You wish to charge that since something is 'improbable' it's impossible, but one we have no basis to decide what qualifies as improbable and certainly so long as its possible science should treat it as such.

Nope, I do not consider 'improbable' the same as 'impossible', but simply 'unlikely'. And, yes, we do know enough about gene replication and expression to know that our current ideas for the creation of a novel gene is rather unlikely. The only reason that I can see that many in the science community, particularly those who accept the modern version of the evolutionary theory, hold onto unlikely explanations (such as the creation of novel genes) is that they have already ruled out the supernatural and are waiting on 'science' to uncover some new information that would make the process seem more likely. Having said that, I am also aware of many who like to think that the supernatural did interfer in evolution, particularly in those gaps in the story which can only be currently covered using unlikely explanations (when the supernatural is not invoked). These are the ones who are invoking the 'God of the gaps' supernatural. Wherever there is a gap, there must have been God. This, however, while is a reasonable position, is not my approach. My explanation for life begins with the assumption of a God who created life, particularly humans as humans. Thus God is not a God of the gaps, but the source of life, and the one reference upon which all of reality hangs. Obviously, I do not make that assumption based on empirical evidence, so it is not an issue that needs to be considered by the scientific community. However, any claim that macroevolution has occurred will be viewed with a decent level of suspicion until there is good evidence. Right now, I cannot think of an example of macroevolution that has convincing evidence. From what I have read, macroevolution is a theory that requires very low probabilities.

Originally Posted by Bruarong
How improbable is it that of all the people in the world you would end up talking to me? If we considered it from a beforehand approach the odds against it would astronomical, no? Yet, here we are. Improbable does not negate anything from an emperical point of view. EVER.

We don't know that. Many people THINK so, but such is not from the scientific method.

But you are asking us to accept that human beings were the only outcome rather than the outcome we just happened to get. That would be like the above scenario assuming that if I went on the internet the only person I could have ended up talking to is you. It not only has no basis, but it's unlikely.

I think you have mixed up the quote. I did not post the first segment of the post, beginning with, 'How improbable...'' The part that I did post was 'We don't know that. Many people THINK so, but such is not from the scientific method.' In using this sentence, I was referring to the 'belief' that many people have in something like macroevolution. I was arguing that the conclusion that people come to over macroevolution explaining, e.g., how prokaryotes gave rise to eukaryotes, was not based on empirical evidence, but explanations and speculations. Such a macroevolutionary step has not been observed or demonstrated, thus we can't even say if it is possible. Probability, in that example, cannot be calculated. Rather, we can only make probability calculations based on processes that we do understand, like calculating the probability of a novel gene coding for a protein that gives the organism an advantage. It is only because we understand a good deal of gene replication, expression, etc., that we can make such a calculation.

As for your reply to that post that was not my post, if evolution were truly a random thing, and that every possible variant of evolution, e.g., conditions, selection, etc., was given a chance, than one might expect that all of life that was possible does exist. However, we cannot say that every possibility has occurred, thus life would be a product of selection acting upon the variation that is available. If I accepted that humans are a product of macroevolution, I would be silly to insist that humans are the only possible outcome. But nowhere have I assumed this. However, the fact that humans need, eg., a brain in order to be human is already a suggestion of a specific requirement. Thus one can begin to think about the probability of developing a brain (a must for the human species).

You consider it improbable. Science cannot be based on your assumptions. You have to prove that it is so unlikely as to be near impossible, but we don't have the information to do so. If you look at an series of events at a low enough level they would seem improbable if you assume the outcome was the sought outcome. There is one problem with that. How can you assume such a thing?

I have already given an indication of how the creation of a novel gene does appear improbable, and unlikely. Each step in the pathway relies on the equivalent of a successful lottery win (actually, the odds are far lower than any lottery win, in my estimation). Thus, in order to satisfy the hundreds of steps that such a new gene would need to take, it would be the equivalent of a single person winning the lottery, say, 100 times in a row. Such odds are getting more unlikely with each lottery. We cannot call it impossible, but there comes a point when no one is going to take the possibility seriously.

When we go back to the idea of the creation of a novel gene, we have the end goal in mind. It is specified. We need new genes to explain new features of the organism, which confer a selection advantage. This is how we think macroevolution is possible. Thus, we can consider the probability of a new gene arising, based on what we currently know about gene replication and gene expression. In such an example, it appears perfectly normal for me to assume that novel features require novel genes (although not, perhaps, in every case--there are exceptions, e.g., from mutations in embryonic development genes that appear to create new features).

God has not place in science. Science quite simply cannot address the notion of an intelligent designer because it requires science to have knowledge it quite simply can't and will never have. All science is based on observation and no observation supports your claims for why God should be invoked. One must first accept a whole lot of completely unsupported and unfalsifiable claims in order to reach the conclusion that you are trying to reach.

However, if your observation clearly points to a designer, it is logical to posit the interference of a designer, eg. with the bombing of London example. Your assumption that God has no place in science appears to be based on the fact that science cannot tell us whether god or gods can or cannot exist. But it doesn't follow. It is not more rational to to make the assumption that God has no place in speculations about origins than it is to assume that He was involved in everything. In each case, you cannot falsify the idea that God was or was not involved in science, therefore, what is the basis for making up a rule that means that he cannot be invoked in explanations and speculations? Are you suggesting that the only valuable knowledge is that which can be derived from the scientific method? Furthermore, I cannot believe that you genuinely think that all of the 'knowledge' within science is falsifyable.

Um, yes, it can. Science looks at available evidence, with the acceptance that this is only the AVAILABLE evidence, and makes a conclusion. This is science's role. That conclusion must be something that can be tested and if appropriate falsified. Any conclusions that cannot be falsified or requires unsupported and unsupportable assumptions must be tossed out as not having a basis in science. If you're left with more than one reasonable conclusion then you test to see which is correct. If you left with only one conclusion then it is adopted until a more reasonable conclusion or evidence to negate the original conclusion is found.

The problem arises when you are left with only unreasonable conclusions. Then what? Remember, science is the search for truth in the material world. Let's take a hypothetical situation in which it is true that there is a designer, even though we do not have the empirical evidence of this. Your idea of science would go on following a falsehood (i.e. that there was no designer), simply because you have defined science as only dealing with the natural world, and not the supernatural. Even though there really is a designer, every time you are going to come to conclusions that are false, simply because you refuse to consider a possibility on the grounds that is cannot be tested, not on the grounds that it is unlikely or false. I don't like your idea of science, and I maintain that science does not, indeed, is not, that way. Your sort of science is not a search for truth, but a search for explanations that do not include the supernatural.

Evolutionary theory and everything related to it is falsifiable and it is based on all available emperical evidence, ignoring none. The creation story of the Bible is neither emperical evidence nor a valid scientific hypothesis since the story is not testable and the theory is not falsifiable.

Your claim that evolutionary theory is falsifyable is a big wrong. Perhaps most of it cannot be currently falsified. For example, one simply cannot falsify the idea that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. Where would you start? What experiment would you do that would demonstrate this?

There is no conflict. You're making it up. A signal point of origin is not correct about the evolutionary theory. Second, it does not negate the possibility of supernatural interference in the creation of life, it just doesn't assume it. It also doesn't negate supernatural interference in the creation of humans, it also doesn't assume it. Is your idea of God so limited that He couldn't have known upon creation of the universe that His laws of nature would result in humans? I would not limit God in such a way and science does no address it all.

I get the feeling that you are not familiar with modern evolutionary theory. Look it up in Wikipedia. The consensus definition there clearly states that the theory of evolution involves three major points, one of them being that all of life emerged from a single ancestor. I am definitely not making it up.
As for my idea of God, he certainly is capable of creating humans through evolution. I just don't see any convincing evidence of this. I will believe it when I see it. Until then, I see no reason why I should throw away the Biblical version.

Science accepts that it's possible the revolution of the planets around the sun could possibly be God juggling, but since that can't EVER be verified, we have to look at observable explanations because this is the only way we can be able to predict things. It's a necessary part of science. If we assume supernatural causes then prediction and progress would be rendered impossible. Again, if I want to fix your computer but I allow for the possibility that demons have broken it then I am required to take the next step of hiring an excorcist. How is this a benefit to anyone?

You would only hire an exorcist if you had prior knowledge of a demon. Without that it would be more logical to hire a computer technitian as the first step.

As for God juggling planets, I do not consider that to be a possibility that science accepts. Rather, it is a possibility that science cannot even consider, simply because of the lack of empirical evidence. Because science can adequately explain the rotation, based on the current understanding of gravity and motion, etc., there is no need to consider it a juggling act of God. What is more logical, for example is to allow that God may have placed the planets in their orbits. That would explain why the moons of those planets, for example, orbit in both directions, rather than all in a single direction, which is what we would expect from the aftermath of a big bang.

You're wrong. You assume it does because you view as contradictory to your beliefs. If your beliefs were that babies came from storks you would probably view obstetrics as interfering the supernatural, but you'd be incorrect in that assumption.

On the contrary, I clearly showed you how the modern evolutionary theory does not allow for God to have created humans as humans. In this way, the theory places a limitation on the supernatural.

Also, there is lots of evidence that humans were not created as humans and none that they were. Do you expect science to just ignore it simply because your faith tells you they should?

Not evidence that can only be explained in terms of evolution, but data that can be explained according to both ideas. Thus the 'lots of evidence' that you referred to has simply not been convincing for me. You may argue that I am not convinced simply because I am biased, and am hiding my head in the sand. And you are entitled to your opinion, but such an opinion would be biased and subjective, because you do not know me personally, neither do you know how careful or the level of consideration that I give to such 'evidence'. Thus, if you hold such an opinion, you would be demonstrating your own bias, not mine. Having said that, I will admit that I am biased, as is everyone else. There are only people who know they are biased, and people who think they are not.

Science doesn't rule out the possibility, it simply doesn't address supernatural causes. You seem to miss it. If your kids break a lamp and you don't see it do you go well before I blame one of my children I better make certain a ghost didn't do it or a demon or a fairy or whatever. Nope, you deal with what you can deal with and that is the natural causes.

If I were to use your example, and if I found a broken lamp in the living room, would I assume that the probability of a lamp falling over on its own accord is a more convincing explanation than one of my kids accidentally knocking it over? The interference from an agent external to the lamp would be a more logical conclusion, because I had prior evidence that my kids love to romp in the living room. What you are saying that if I cannot test the explanation that my kids knocked over the lamp (e.g., because they were all at school), than it is more reasonable to assume that the lamp somehow fell over on its own account (an no, it could not be the wind because all the doors and windows were closed).

Wait, perhaps demons did it. Why, oh, why didn't they consider a supernatural possibility?

Rather, it was designed, as opposed to random. It looked designed. And when the search continued, it confirmed that the bomb blasts were designed. At that point, the designer was not identified, but most people thought of Muslim fundamentalists as a reasonable conclusion, based on prior evidence.

Only law and randomness cannot be eliminated because the only way to do so is to make significant assumptions that you cannot verify EVER. You can't verify the improbability of us ending up here. You simply can't. So you can't base negating a theory on it.

Is that like saying that one cannot ever rule out the theory that the lamp fell over on it's own accord, simply because you can't ever negate that theory?

And evolutionary theory does not rely on randomness. It's like this. I put water into a strainer. The water is just going to fall in the direction of gravity with some account of any velocity I gave it horizontally. Now where it hits the strainer is somewhat random it may hit a hole or it may hit the metal. However, the results are not random. Water cannot get through the metal. The water is permitted to be random by the nature of the strainer. The strainer gives the water order without any intelligence from the strainer. The theory of evolution is something that gives order to what would otherwise be randomness, like gravity does, like chemical reactions do, like subatomic forces do, like ecolological equilibriums do. These are processes that reach order without any intelligence and they've been observed. Does that mean that like the strainer they cannot have been created by an intelligent force? No. But we don't assign intelligence to the strainer. And in the absence of proof that intelligent source rather than natural processes created the strainer we must go with that which can be observed and verified or else everything we do will all have equal value, which is to say none.

Someone designed the strainer, thus it isn't random. The water behaved that way in accordance with the design of the strainer. Someone else (you) lifted the water up and poured it through the strainer. The water flowed towards its most stable state (downwards). Your whole observation (that water appeared ordered) can be concluded by saying that it was ordered because you designed it and used a strainer that was ordered. It all smacks of design.

The designer is the basis of the theory and thus if it cannot be falsified it has not place in science. Maybe in quantum theory when we can't observe two data because observing one affects the other is because it's really demon preventing us from observing the other. We don't accept that simply because we haven't come up with a better explanation. Why? Because it could never be falsified which makes it ridiculous. According to you Roman mythology was science at the time since it was the best explanations available even though they were just made up stories that could never be verified.

Not being falsifyable does not make an explanation ridiculous. Rather an improbable explanation is a ridiculous one. And I would never call mythology science. To do that would be too derogatory to both areas of knowledge.

Willamena

19-10-2005, 13:58

As the theory goes, all organisms descend from a single organism. The implication is that the supernatural (if it created life at all) could have created only one from which all of modern life emerged.
Well, technically it means he could have created many, but from only one species all modern life on Earth emerges.

Bruarong

19-10-2005, 14:35

Well, technically it means he could have created many, but from only one species all modern life on Earth emerges.

I actually had that idea in mind when writing my post, i.e., that there was only one ancestor from which all of life was derived. The other life forms that may have been created had no descendents, or at least none that have been detected.

Writing those huge posts can leave one a little 'tongue tied', not to mention having a numb mind.
I am mildly surprised that you would bother to read them all, Willamena.

Willamena

19-10-2005, 16:30

Writing those huge posts can leave one a little 'tongue tied', not to mention having a numb mind.
I am mildly surprised that you would bother to read them all, Willamena.
I am trying my best to understand your position, and I admire you sticking to your convictions.

Willamena

19-10-2005, 16:32

I agree that the theory does not rest on the assumption of a single ancestor. But it is currently there, nevertheless, and thus rules out the possibility of the supernatural creating humans as humans. In this way, the theory is placing a sort of limitation on the supernatural.
The whole concept of reality places a limitation on the supernatural.

Bruarong

19-10-2005, 16:48

The whole concept of reality places a limitation on the supernatural.

Perhaps, or perhaps the supernatural has placed a limitation on our concept of reality. In any case, my argument was against a theory that people claim does not place limitations on the supernatural. There are two separate issues here. One is that I do not like that theory, for a number of reasons, e.g. the argument over whether it is believable and whether it fits with the observations. The second issue is over whether such a theory should place a restriction on the supernatural, particularly when the whole point of the theory is to explain a natural observation, not a supernatural one. If this is so, it has no business placing any limitations on the supernatural and simultaneously claiming to have nothing to do with the supernatural. That would be a contradiction.

Bruarong

19-10-2005, 16:58

I am trying my best to understand your position, and I admire you sticking to your convictions.

Then I admire your persistance in trying to understand my position. I am well aware that the problem with understanding a creationist point of view is to do with one's 'world view'. It is a completely difference perspective, one that is hard to understand unless you have really 'bought in to the whole Christian God thing'. The interesting thing is that for those who believe in God and miracles and the Bible, they have no problem understanding my point of view. They see my logic as reasonable and cohesive. On the other hand, you have theistic evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, etc. who simply cannot understand the position, it seems, no matter how hard they try (if they try at all). The interesting thing is that, IMO, one needs to understand another's viewpoint if they are to successfully rebut it. Because there seems to be little understanding of the creationist point of view (a problem that is not helped by many who profess to be creationists but post things that do a great injustice to the position, particularly when they know little about the nature of science), our debate does indeed appear to go around and around. Certainly, I do admire your persistance. And yet it is people like you who are potentially the biggest challenge to my argument. For if you really do understand my position, you will never give me any peace over the weaker points of my argument. On the other hand, I am committed to the discovery of truth, and cannot but applaud others when they attempt to understand what I consider to be true and reasonable, regardless of their motive.

Edit: futhermore, it is very good for me when I am challenged over the weaker points of my argument, for it means that I have to review what I consider to be true. As you would know, when truth is placed under scrutiny, it will only become more obviously truth, or it will be revealed as untruth, in which case, I have no wish to continue arguing that it is true.

Willamena

19-10-2005, 17:02

Willamena

19-10-2005, 17:06

I am well aware that the problem with understanding a creationist point of view is to do with one's 'world view'. It is a completely difference perspective, one that is hard to understand unless you have really 'bought in to the whole Christian God thing'. The interesting thing is that for those who believe in God and miracles and the Bible, they have no problem understanding my point of view. They see my logic as reasonable and cohesive. On the other hand, you have theistic evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, etc. who simply cannot understand the position, it seems, no matter how hard they try (if they try at all).
No offense, but it seems that much of Creationist's logic is based on a misunderstanding of the concepts involved, like the very good point made about probability: that evolution to our present state is improbable only if you consider that our present state is the intended result.

Since each evolutionary stage is a gradual change, and change is inevitable, I don't see how it can be an improbable progression.

Jocabia

19-10-2005, 17:17

Nope, I do not consider 'improbable' the same as 'impossible', but simply 'unlikely'. And, yes, we do know enough about gene replication and expression to know that our current ideas for the creation of a novel gene is rather unlikely. The only reason that I can see that many in the science community, particularly those who accept the modern version of the evolutionary theory, hold onto unlikely explanations (such as the creation of novel genes) is that they have already ruled out the supernatural and are waiting on 'science' to uncover some new information that would make the process seem more likely. Having said that, I am also aware of many who like to think that the supernatural did interfer in evolution, particularly in those gaps in the story which can only be currently covered using unlikely explanations (when the supernatural is not invoked). These are the ones who are invoking the 'God of the gaps' supernatural. Wherever there is a gap, there must have been God. This, however, while is a reasonable position, is not my approach. My explanation for life begins with the assumption of a God who created life, particularly humans as humans. Thus God is not a God of the gaps, but the source of life, and the one reference upon which all of reality hangs. Obviously, I do not make that assumption based on empirical evidence, so it is not an issue that needs to be considered by the scientific community. However, any claim that macroevolution has occurred will be viewed with a decent level of suspicion until there is good evidence. Right now, I cannot think of an example of macroevolution that has convincing evidence. From what I have read, macroevolution is a theory that requires very low probabilities.

First, can you show me what the 'unlikely' probabilility is? What's the probability that an intelligent designer that science has no evidence of did it? How is it more probable than evolutionary theory? If you can't show a proof for that last answer, and you can't, then you have no business even thinking about proposing it as a theory.

Second, you are 100% wrong. Science never has and never will rule out a supernatural explanation because it's quite simply impossible. Science accepts the possibility of the supernatural, it just doesn't deal with it. If it cannot be observed either directly or indirectly then science leaves it alone.

Third, so in other words, science is dealing with the most likely explanation from a scientific standpoint and you don't like it. Tough. You can't even define unlikely and you don't know what the number of workable outcomes or the number of attempts was. Unlikely is not a word that can be applied since you have no idea how unlikely it is. As far as novel genes, they have been observed, so it's not really difficult to buy into that little bit of the theory. Unless like many people who don't understand science you wish to redefine what a novel gene is.

I think you have mixed up the quote. I did not post the first segment of the post, beginning with, 'How improbable...'' The part that I did post was 'We don't know that. Many people THINK so, but such is not from the scientific method.' In using this sentence, I was referring to the 'belief' that many people have in something like macroevolution. I was arguing that the conclusion that people come to over macroevolution explaining, e.g., how prokaryotes gave rise to eukaryotes, was not based on empirical evidence, but explanations and speculations. Such a macroevolutionary step has not been observed or demonstrated, thus we can't even say if it is possible. Probability, in that example, cannot be calculated. Rather, we can only make probability calculations based on processes that we do understand, like calculating the probability of a novel gene coding for a protein that gives the organism an advantage. It is only because we understand a good deal of gene replication, expression, etc., that we can make such a calculation.

It is based on emperical evidence and they came up with the most likely explanation based on available evidence. If more evidence becomes available they will check to see if this remains the most reasonable explanation. It doesn't matter what the probability is when we know it happens.

As for your reply to that post that was not my post, if evolution were truly a random thing, and that every possible variant of evolution, e.g., conditions, selection, etc., was given a chance, than one might expect that all of life that was possible does exist. However, we cannot say that every possibility has occurred, thus life would be a product of selection acting upon the variation that is available. If I accepted that humans are a product of macroevolution, I would be silly to insist that humans are the only possible outcome. But nowhere have I assumed this. However, the fact that humans need, eg., a brain in order to be human is already a suggestion of a specific requirement. Thus one can begin to think about the probability of developing a brain (a must for the human species).

You did suggest that the outcome was the only viable outcome when you suggested it could be used to suggest the probability of getting here. A probability that can't even so much as be estimated since you don't have enough information. Yet, you suggest it is a reason to reject evolution. In the post, however, you are suddenly changing your tune. It's nice to see someone actually bending to overwhelming evidence.

I have already given an indication of how the creation of a novel gene does appear improbable, and unlikely. Each step in the pathway relies on the equivalent of a successful lottery win (actually, the odds are far lower than any lottery win, in my estimation). Thus, in order to satisfy the hundreds of steps that such a new gene would need to take, it would be the equivalent of a single person winning the lottery, say, 100 times in a row. Such odds are getting more unlikely with each lottery. We cannot call it impossible, but there comes a point when no one is going to take the possibility seriously.

Appears, in your opinion, to be improbable. Can you show the probability calculation? You can't? Because you don't have enough information? That's because your premise is ridiculous. You simply don't have the information to make the claims you are making. I love these types of comparisons. Like I said, what is the probability of me talking to you if you assume that this is the only possible outcome? Doesn't matter, however, since we know I am talking to you.

When we go back to the idea of the creation of a novel gene, we have the end goal in mind. It is specified. We need new genes to explain new features of the organism, which confer a selection advantage. This is how we think macroevolution is possible. Thus, we can consider the probability of a new gene arising, based on what we currently know about gene replication and gene expression. In such an example, it appears perfectly normal for me to assume that novel features require novel genes (although not, perhaps, in every case--there are exceptions, e.g., from mutations in embryonic development genes that appear to create new features).

Still waiting for the calculation of probability that is based on emperical evidence.

However, if your observation clearly points to a designer, it is logical to posit the interference of a designer, eg. with the bombing of London example. Your assumption that God has no place in science appears to be based on the fact that science cannot tell us whether god or gods can or cannot exist. But it doesn't follow. It is not more rational to to make the assumption that God has no place in speculations about origins than it is to assume that He was involved in everything. In each case, you cannot falsify the idea that God was or was not involved in science, therefore, what is the basis for making up a rule that means that he cannot be invoked in explanations and speculations? Are you suggesting that the only valuable knowledge is that which can be derived from the scientific method? Furthermore, I cannot believe that you genuinely think that all of the 'knowledge' within science is falsifyable.

What observation points to a designer? Your made-up observation of probability? You are making huge leaps of logic and suggesting that anyone else who does not make them is being illogical. It's amusing at best, and sad at worst. Again, care to show how a supernatural explanation is more probable or has ANY evidence for it?

And yes, all of the knowledge (with the exception of the knowledge you claim it has but science does not) is absolutely falsifiable.

The problem arises when you are left with only unreasonable conclusions. Then what? Remember, science is the search for truth in the material world. Let's take a hypothetical situation in which it is true that there is a designer, even though we do not have the empirical evidence of this. Your idea of science would go on following a falsehood (i.e. that there was no designer), simply because you have defined science as only dealing with the natural world, and not the supernatural. Even though there really is a designer, every time you are going to come to conclusions that are false, simply because you refuse to consider a possibility on the grounds that is cannot be tested, not on the grounds that it is unlikely or false. I don't like your idea of science, and I maintain that science does not, indeed, is not, that way. Your sort of science is not a search for truth, but a search for explanations that do not include the supernatural.

You have yet to show any form of evidence other than your faith for how unreasonable this conclusion is. "It appears improbable to me" is not emperical evidence for debunking a theory. You're going to have to do better.

"My" sort of science is science that relies on available emperical evidence for making conclusions and rules out not conclusion that can be reached based on the evidence. If evidence appears for a supernatural conclusion a supernatural conclusion will be reached. In the absence of evidence, science makes no conclusion, supernatural or otherwise. I'm sorry that you can't see the logic in this. Originally my statement agreed with you until demons came and reworded it.

Your claim that evolutionary theory is falsifyable is a big wrong. Perhaps most of it cannot be currently falsified. For example, one simply cannot falsify the idea that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. Where would you start? What experiment would you do that would demonstrate this?

You would look for evidence that suggests otherwise which is what they currently do. They have made many changes to the various paths of evolution based on new evidence. To suggest otherwise is either ignorant or an outright lie.

I get the feeling that you are not familiar with modern evolutionary theory. Look it up in Wikipedia. The consensus definition there clearly states that the theory of evolution involves three major points, one of them being that all of life emerged from a single ancestor. I am definitely not making it up.

Wikipedia is incorrect. There are some that speculate on such a thing but, as there is no evidence for this, it is only speculation. It is not an accepted theory that all life evolved from a single organism.

As for my idea of God, he certainly is capable of creating humans through evolution. I just don't see any convincing evidence of this. I will believe it when I see it. Until then, I see no reason why I should throw away the Biblical version.

HA. The Biblical version doesn't say he created humans as humans. It's a description of the visions given the prophets. You have to make a lot of assumptions on both the purpose of the information given in the story, on the Bible as a whole and the original language to conclude otherwise.

You would only hire an exorcist if you had prior knowledge of a demon. Without that it would be more logical to hire a computer technitian as the first step.

You think? So what prior evidence of God to we have suggest including him in theory? If you're going to say the Bible then Science has to addressing Hindu gods and whatnot as well.

As for God juggling planets, I do not consider that to be a possibility that science accepts. Rather, it is a possibility that science cannot even consider, simply because of the lack of empirical evidence.

HAHAHAHA! Now we're getting somewhere. Science does not consider that which there is no evidence for.

Because science can adequately explain the rotation, based on the current understanding of gravity and motion, etc., there is no need to consider it a juggling act of God.

There was never any need to consider it a juggling act even before it was understood. Science bases conclusions on evidence and there was no evidence for the theory. Otherwise you put science in the position of slowly disproving God.

What is more logical, for example is to allow that God may have placed the planets in their orbits. That would explain why the moons of those planets, for example, orbit in both directions, rather than all in a single direction, which is what we would expect from the aftermath of a big bang.

Really? Why would you expect them all to orbit in a single direction without making assumptions as to how they came together? What is you evidence for this? There is not a shred of evidence against the Big Bang.

On the contrary, I clearly showed you how the modern evolutionary theory does not allow for God to have created humans as humans. In this way, the theory places a limitation on the supernatural.

Ha. And modern obstetric theory doesn't allow for a stork to deliver babies. We need to start ignoring evidence and starting working on faith. Stupid science, considering all the evidence that suggests the earth is older than some faiths believe and that there was life before humans which some faiths don't believe and that the earth revolves around the sun which some faiths didn't believe. Evidence is just tricks from the devil. God created the earth but had absolutely no control over the evidence or the laws of the universe, apparently. Ridiculous.

Not evidence that can only be explained in terms of evolution, but data that can be explained according to both ideas. Thus the 'lots of evidence' that you referred to has simply not been convincing for me. You may argue that I am not convinced simply because I am biased, and am hiding my head in the sand. And you are entitled to your opinion, but such an opinion would be biased and subjective, because you do not know me personally, neither do you know how careful or the level of consideration that I give to such 'evidence'. Thus, if you hold such an opinion, you would be demonstrating your own bias, not mine. Having said that, I will admit that I am biased, as is everyone else. There are only people who know they are biased, and people who think they are not.

There is NO evidence for a creation story. NONE. When there is it will be considered by science. PERIOD. Bias aside.

If I were to use your example, and if I found a broken lamp in the living room, would I assume that the probability of a lamp falling over on its own accord is a more convincing explanation than one of my kids accidentally knocking it over? The interference from an agent external to the lamp would be a more logical conclusion, because I had prior evidence that my kids love to romp in the living room. What you are saying that if I cannot test the explanation that my kids knocked over the lamp (e.g., because they were all at school), than it is more reasonable to assume that the lamp somehow fell over on its own account (an no, it could not be the wind because all the doors and windows were closed).

Ah, so you base your theories on evidence. If you have evidence that creation occurred trust me, I'd love to see it. You don't. No one does. That's why it's called faith. God expects us to have faith. We have a free will that angels can't have because they don't base their knowledge of the Lord on faith. We do. There is no proof of God. We have to accept it on faith. That's the whole point. You apparently missed that little lesson in Sunday school.

Rather, it was designed, as opposed to random. It looked designed. And when the search continued, it confirmed that the bomb blasts were designed. At that point, the designer was not identified, but most people thought of Muslim fundamentalists as a reasonable conclusion, based on prior evidence.

Your killing me. They used available evidence to come to a conclusion and when more evidence appeared that revised the conclusion. That seems to be exactly how things generally work. You wants us to just say God did it when we don't have 'enough evidence' for the conclusion.

Is that like saying that one cannot ever rule out the theory that the lamp fell over on it's own accord, simply because you can't ever negate that theory?

One has a mountain of evidence and one has none. Show me how you can base the lamp theory on evidence and I'll buy it. You can't. You haven't. Evolution is the most reasonable theory based on the evidence. And the 'evidence' you have against it requires an unbelievable amount of assumption and, quite frankly, faith. The difference betweent the two things you are trying to equate is one is a theory based on evidence that you are trying to negate with no evidence, and one is a theory based on no evidence being negated with no evidence. The former doesn't make any sense to allow and the latter totally makes sense. Make a theory based on no evidence and I will dismiss it with no evidence. Make a theory based on evidence and it will be much more difficult to dismiss.

Someone designed the strainer, thus it isn't random. The water behaved that way in accordance with the design of the strainer. Someone else (you) lifted the water up and poured it through the strainer. The water flowed towards its most stable state (downwards). Your whole observation (that water appeared ordered) can be concluded by saying that it was ordered because you designed it and used a strainer that was ordered. It all smacks of design.

I used a designed example and said so. That's the point. There is order. Then I gave about a dozens examples of things that tend toward order with no design. In fact most designs we make are imitations of nature. If it was a simple as you say why is there weather? Why doesn't all water just fall to earth and stay there? Why does it reach an equilibrium with the atmosphere? Equilibrium, that's order. Ecosystems reach equilbrium without intelligence behind them. Beehives have order with no intelligence controlling them. Anthills, forests, rivers, oceans, planets going aroung the sun, moons going around the planets, planets, moons and the sun all revolving. It all smacks of order and there are perfectly natural explanations for these moves to order in every case (gravity, evaporation/condensation, order of complex systems). In fact, our biggest advances in intelligence came when we stopped trying to design artificial intelligence and started letting it develop by imitating natural systems. We forced order on artificial intelligence and fell far short. But we created a bunch of simple systems and placed them together like ants and they found order. The reached it and it was a more advance system than any we'd ever seen before. That's not using design, that's creating laws and letting things develop in their own way. Kind of throws a wrench in your whole theory, no?

Not being falsifyable does not make an explanation ridiculous. Rather an improbable explanation is a ridiculous one. And I would never call mythology science. To do that would be too derogatory to both areas of knowledge.
No, mythology would be religion. I know that. I'm glad you know the difference. Religion is not science no matter how much it would like to be. They don't have the same rule set.

Bruarong

19-10-2005, 17:24

What about the supernatural is being limited? Its ability to offer explanation for things? That's just it... even if we allow for it, it doesn't offer any explanation for things. It is 'no information.' It is 'magic.' It is 'Ta da!'

Let's take an example. My idea of the origin of humans is a special creation by God. I make no attempt to hide that this idea comes not from science, but the Bible. However, evolutionary theory claims that humans are a product of evolution, not a special creation. This is not to say that theistic evolutionists believe that God was not able to create humans, only that they think that God used evolution to do so. In that sense, it is not a limitation on the ability of God, but rather a comment on his method of bringing about humans. Not bad for a theory that is not supposed to have anything to do with the supernatural, eh? Even then, I do not consider the theory wrong, just because it appears to be making such a contradiction. On the contrary, when macroevolution is shown to occur, I will have to review what I consider to be the truth about the origin of man and about what the Bible really means when it says that God created man from the dust. Until then, I will not allow such a theory to change what I hold to be the truth, particularly when it appears to allow such a contradiction.

I don't agree with you that explaining an observation using the supernatural is useless. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. In the case of the Bible, we have information (before the discovery of the scientific method) that the world was designed by God. The Biblical account is not ad hoc. And thus I am not trying to account for an observation by saying 'It must be magic', but rather, I believe that the observation can be explained by the Biblical account. It is fitting an observation with an already existing explanation (i.e., the Bible), not constructing an explanation to fit with an observation. So there is a chance that the observation cannot be explained by this already existing explanation. Indeed, multiple times in the past, I have observed something that does not appear to fit in with the Bible. But on closer inspection, it does appear to agree. There are some observations that are yet to fit in with the Biblical account, but rather than throwing away the account, I have concluded that it is better wait a little longer for more information. In such a view point, the existence of the supernatural cannot be falsifyable, but the Biblical account can be falsifyable, or at least my interpretation of the Biblical account is falsifyable. When proven false, I will have to read it again for a better interpretation. Until then, I believe that my interpretation of the Bible is true, and that everything that I discover in the material world through science can potentially agree with it.

Jocabia

19-10-2005, 17:27

Perhaps, or perhaps the supernatural has placed a limitation on our concept of reality. In any case, my argument was against a theory that people claim does not place limitations on the supernatural. There are two separate issues here. One is that I do not like that theory, for a number of reasons, e.g. the argument over whether it is believable and whether it fits with the observations. The second issue is over whether such a theory should place a restriction on the supernatural, particularly when the whole point of the theory is to explain a natural observation, not a supernatural one. If this is so, it has no business placing any limitations on the supernatural and simultaneously claiming to have nothing to do with the supernatural. That would be a contradiction.

See, you simply don't get it. It places no restrictions on the supernatural. I'm sorry that you feel like it's a contradiction. That's unfortunate. But saying it is commenting on the supernatural is as I said, like suggesting that obstetrics is commenting on the supernatural when it shows where babies come from. It's like saying that discovering that disease was caused by tiny organisms was commenting on the supernatural because it was in contradiction with diseases being caused by evil spirits. It's like saying that discovering the earth goes around the sun rather than the other way around was commenting on the supernatural. None of these were commenting on the supernatural. They were commenting on the natural based on the available natural evidence. If some supernatural theories happen to contradict available evidence, science has no place addressing that problem at all. Science makes no estimation on how reasonable religion is. It does not fall within the realm of science. Now if science ignored evidence based on supernatural theories or dismissed or contradicted natural theories based on supernatural theories with no evidence to make this necessary THAT would be commenting on the supernatural. As it is, science simply ignores anything for which there is no evidence natural or supernatural.

Jocabia

19-10-2005, 17:30

No offense, but it seems that much of Creationist's logic is based on a misunderstanding of the concepts involved, like the very good point made about probability: that evolution to our present state is improbable only if you consider that our present state is the intended result.

Since each evolutionary stage is a gradual change, and change is inevitable, I don't see how it can be an improbable progression.

Exactly. For the record, as you know, I believe in creation just not in the way it is being presented in this thread. I believe Creationists are going against evidence in the Bible and evidence God left for us on Earth.

And suggesting that science comments on creation is like saying I'm commenting on Islam when I say I'm a Christian. Simply because the two contradict doesn't mean you can call me Anti-Islam.

Grave_n_idle

19-10-2005, 17:35

Debating statistics is precisely what I am trying to avoid. In many conclusions, for example, a scientist would not sit down to figure out the probability that an observation can be explained by such and such. Only if the probability is close to 0.5 would that sort of statistical analysis be relevant. Where the probability is far closer to zero, and it appears obviously so, then there is most likely little value in trying to calculate it exactly. This is what we do throughout much of science, I believe. Improbably explanations are not given much time, since most people are not interested in debating statistics. Because it also happens in a court of law (i.e. that the jury will rule someone guilty or not guilty on the basis of what appears to be obvious, rather than withholding judgement because there is yet a probability (albeit rather low) that their obvious judgement could be wrong), this sort of reaction to probabilities is typical.

If you are trying to avoid debating statistics... might one suggest that you just stop debating statistics?

You clearly don't have any understanding of what is at work here. We assess very real, but very low, probabilities every day... for example: the risks in insurance are based on (largely) naturally occuring physical events. Or the fact that there is a small chance that an Extinction Level Event will be spawned by a meteor/asteroid strike or some similar.

We assess the safety of our structures, the risks and burdens, using small but real probabilities.

Do we only put earthquake protection in a bulding that has been damaged in more than 50% of recent quakes?

As I have pointed out, not necessarily. The probability of the thing happening is only considered if it is reasonably high. There is always the probability that water will run uphill, breaking what we know of gravity, but obviously it never gets considered because the probability is too low. Likewise, when we know that our current theories for the generation of a novel gene are too low, how is it rational that someone should consider that theory valid?

"Too low" is balderdash - sorry. I'm just calling it how it is. You can't turn around and deny something just because YOU find it unlikely. As I have alluded to, I find 'god' unlikely... VERY unlikely.

In fact, I'd say the probability of 'god' creating the world, was vanishingly small.

Thus, by your logic, 'god' can NOT have created the world.

However, you should know that science consists of a community of humans, all of whom have the responsibility of exercising their judgement to form conclusions about likely explanations, many of which are based on some sort of probability (calculated or not). Thus, my opinion of what is probable is as relevant as the 'next guy'.

Wrong again, I'm afraid.

'Science' is a discipline. 'Scientistsi are a community of humans.

And, since you are not sticking to the most basic precepts of science (and, in fact, seem to not even acknowledge them), I'm sorrry to say it, but your 'opinion' really is NOT as relevant as the 'next guy'.

No, your consideration or conclusion does not contradict the existence of god. However, your opinion is valid, but unless it is based on empirical evidence, it remains based on your world view, or some sort of evidence that is not collected through empirical science. If you were able, based on scientific evidence, to associate some sort of probability of the existence of God, perhaps you would have an argument that could be considered by the scientific community. Until then, your example of the existence of God is not relevant to this debate.

The Empirical evidence denies the existence of god... surely you realise this.

Again, you are hoist by your own petard. Twice you have denied 'god' with your own peculiar brand of logic.

Then you are sensible.

Not necessarily... however, I am NOT trying to shape science to suit my needs.

The following is taken from Wikipedia. This is the basis of the scientific theory of evolution.

''The theory underlying the modern synthesis has three major aspects:
The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
The manifestation of novel traits in a lineage.
The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.''

As the theory goes, all organisms descend from a single organism. The implication is that the supernatural (if it created life at all) could have created only one from which all of modern life emerged.

I don't really accept an open-edit-source as definitive, I'm afraid.

Personally, as far as I can see, evolution requires that life adapts from earlier life. It doesn't MATTER where the original life came from, or how many 'bits' it was in.

I'm afraid you (or Wikipedia) are confused over the limitations of evolutionary theory.

On the contrary, not a strawman, but a major point in the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory. I agree that the theory does not rest on the assumption of a single ancestor. But it is currently there, nevertheless, and thus rules out the possibility of the supernatural creating humans as humans. In this way, the theory is placing a sort of limitation on the supernatural.

No - it IS a strawman. Evolution works just as well if there were one progenitor, or one million. What is important, in evolution, is that characteristics are genetically inherited, and certain attributes are 'acquired' through a survival of the most fit variants.

Willamena

19-10-2005, 17:48

Science accepts the possibility of the supernatural, it just doesn't deal with it.
Just a nit-pick: no, science does not accept the possibility of the supernatural. Scientists might, but science cannot. In "not dealing" with the supernatural, it offers no opinion --neither acceptance nor rejection --of the supernatural.

Willamena

19-10-2005, 18:08

Let's take an example. My idea of the origin of humans is a special creation by God. I make no attempt to hide that this idea comes not from science, but the Bible. However, evolutionary theory claims that humans are a product of evolution, not a special creation. This is not to say that theistic evolutionists believe that God was not able to create humans, only that they think that God used evolution to do so. In that sense, it is not a limitation on the ability of God, but rather a comment on his method of bringing about humans. Not bad for a theory that is not supposed to have anything to do with the supernatural, eh? Even then, I do not consider the theory wrong, just because it appears to be making such a contradiction. On the contrary, when macroevolution is shown to occur, I will have to review what I consider to be the truth about the origin of man and about what the Bible really means when it says that God created man from the dust. Until then, I will not allow such a theory to change what I hold to be the truth, particularly when it appears to allow such a contradiction.

I don't agree with you that explaining an observation using the supernatural is useless. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. In the case of the Bible, we have information (before the discovery of the scientific method) that the world was designed by God. The Biblical account is not ad hoc. And thus I am not trying to account for an observation by saying 'It must be magic', but rather, I believe that the observation can be explained by the Biblical account. It is fitting an observation with an already existing explanation (i.e., the Bible), not constructing an explanation to fit with an observation. So there is a chance that the observation cannot be explained by this already existing explanation. Indeed, multiple times in the past, I have observed something that does not appear to fit in with the Bible. But on closer inspection, it does appear to agree. There are some observations that are yet to fit in with the Biblical account, but rather than throwing away the account, I have concluded that it is better wait a little longer for more information. In such a view point, the existence of the supernatural cannot be falsifyable, but the Biblical account can be falsifyable, or at least my interpretation of the Biblical account is falsifyable. When proven false, I will have to read it again for a better interpretation. Until then, I believe that my interpretation of the Bible is true, and that everything that I discover in the material world through science can potentially agree with it.
But from what I see, you are not really talking about the supernatural being at all.

What I am hearing from your example is not "limiting the supernatural" but the literal interpretation of one specific religion's mythology being contradicted. What I hear is you limiting God to that one mythology by making a starting premise that it is the one truth. The people who allow for God to be the architect of evolution and accept evolution as fact limit God less than you do.

And what I am also hearing is that that religious mythology should be allowed to offer explanation for things.

Jocabia

19-10-2005, 18:11

Just a nit-pick: no, science does not accept the possibility of the supernatural. Scientists might, but science cannot. In "not dealing" with the supernatural, it offers no opinion --neither acceptance nor rejection --of the supernatural.

What I mean is as a discipline if something we currently consider supernatural, let's say ghosts, suddenly had emperical evidence, science would accept it (though it would then no longer consider it supernatural). With evidence for the existence of ghosts they could be included in hypotheses. This is what I mean by accepts the possibility. Science accepts the possibility of purple fairies that fart flames in that it doesn't rule them out. It simply doesn't posit on the existence or nonexistence of anything without evidence.

Willamena

19-10-2005, 18:25

What I mean is as a discipline if something we currently consider supernatural, let's say ghosts, suddenly had emperical evidence, science would accept it (though it would then no longer consider it supernatural). With evidence for the existence of ghosts they could be included in hypotheses. This is what I mean by accepts the possibility. Science accepts the possibility of purple fairies that fart flames in that it doesn't rule them out. It simply doesn't posit on the existence or nonexistence of anything without evidence.
You are correct; if there was empirical evidence for ghosts they would no longer be supernatural. Science cannot accept the supernatural.

G3N13

19-10-2005, 18:31

You clearly don't have any understanding of what is at work here. We assess very real, but very low, probabilities every day... for example: the risks in insurance are based on (largely) naturally occuring physical events. Or the fact that there is a small chance that an Extinction Level Event will be spawned by a meteor/asteroid strike or some similar.

We assess the safety of our structures, the risks and burdens, using small but real probabilities.

Do we only put earthquake protection in a bulding that has been damaged in more than 50% of recent quakes?
The probability of an end result has *very* little significance when the process has already happened.

Taking your earthquake scenario: Let's say earthquake destroyed 40% of, say, 1000 similar buildings in a similar environment. Thus we could conclude that the earthquake had a 40% chance of destroying that specific kind of a structure.

Now if one would use that result to calculate the probability of those specific 400 buildings collapsing, the exact end result, you'd end up with an answer that has absolutely no meaning: Probability of those 400 specific buildings collapsing being 1 in 10^160 - However those 400 specific buildings did collapse leaving 600 similar structures more or less intact.

Or in other words, you cannot question the process or effect using probability of the end result as your material: "How can the phenomenon be valid if the chance of its observed end result is astronomically small?" is an invalid question in most cases.
The Empirical evidence denies the existence of god... surely you realise this.How exactly?

Science *completely* ignores the existence or non-existence of g/God(s).
What is important, in evolution, is that characteristics are genetically inherited, and certain attributes are 'acquired' through a survival of the most fit variants.It's important to notice that fit in evolution does not mean necessarily physically most fit, ie. the stronger, faster or more intelligent individuals.

Jocabia

19-10-2005, 19:36

You are correct; if there was empirical evidence for ghosts they would no longer be supernatural. Science cannot accept the supernatural.

Right, but an important distinction (this is not to you, but to others who would use your statement to claim bias) is that science defines natural and supernatural as that which can be observed directly or indirectly through experimentation and study of evidence and that which cannot. It simply doesn't deal with anything for which there is no evidence. It doesn't reject it, or any other negative action. It simply doesn't bother with anything that has no evidence.

Zagat

20-10-2005, 03:54

So, you are suggesting that a probability estimation is only relevant if it is zero.
In terms of excluding the possibility of something, of course. The fact that probability is something other than zero is proof that it is possible so it is irrelevent for excluding that thing.

I don't believe you. Our law court rules people guilty or not guilty on the basis of probability.
Courts of law do not operate in exact accordance with methodologies and axioms of science.

If there is a 1 in a 1000 chance that the not-guilty pleading of someone convicted of a felony is true, that person is most likely thrown in jail.
And so? What has the imperfection of law got to do with whether or not probability either than zero can exclude possibility?

We use probabilities all the time to make estimations.
An estimation is simply that, a good guess. The fact that people might choose to act on good guesses is a matter or human behaviour not a matter of logic and it's application to reality.

While, in science, we think that far lower odds are still somehow believable? I don't think so.
For any good application of logic to occur it is neccessary to not assume that low odds means impossible. Improbable and impossible are not synomonous.

We don't know that. Many people THINK so, but such is not from the scientific method.
I know of no good reason to think otherwise. I know of no sound evidence to the contrary.

You only have to think about what it takes to generate a new gene.
It doesnt take a lot to generate an allele.

The theory goes that there needs to be a mutation resulting in a duplication of a gene, followed by mutations that change the gene DNA sequence, so that the new gene product function is novel, and somehow confers an advantage.
No that is not how the theory goes.

What most people don't realize is that the complexity involved in such a process is enormous. Genes have to be regulated. They need promotors, ribosome binding sites, a start codon, a stop codon, and the right coding frame. Gene products (proteins) need to be folded, processed, transported, and in some cases, activated. Each of these steps often requires proteins, sometimes multiple proteins, even cascades. Regulation is vital at each step. And all this inside a cell that is almost solid protein 'solution', competing with millions of other proteins--thus interactions in the biochemical world have to be either specific, or involving huge populations of a single protein. And at the end, we need a protein that 'fits', that is functional enough to confer an advantage. But since most proteins to not confer an advantage by working alone, the new protein would most likely have to wait around for another new protein, or dozens of new proteins. Yes, we know the theory, but the probability of a new functional gene arising is very very low, and neither has science been able to provide a convincing example of this process. I consider it rather improbable.[/quote]
Well for a start your description is not entirely accurate. An allele need not confer any advantage whatsoever in order to arise and be duplicated. The fact is a change in a single base can result in the formation of a novel allele. Whether or not the allele confers any advantage on those who possess it is not relevent to whether or not the allele can come into existance. The fact that the allele is not advantageous does not neccessitate it ceasing to exist.

Never have I suggested using the scientific method to study God. I have only been talking about speculations and explanations that invoke God.
None of which are amenable to scientific investigation. God or some other intelligent designer does not imply any limits in what is or is not possible.

Apparently, that is not enough to keep the theory of evolution out of the classroom.
Yes it is.

I still maintain that the scientific method is not in a position to test for macro-evolution.
Macro evolution is capable of producing hypotheses that can be tested. It may be that macro evolution is not in fact something that exists, that being the case with proper scientific investigation there is no concievable reason why we cannot eventually falisify it. The same is simply not true of designer that concievably is not limited by material cause and effect and outside the natural world (ie supernatural).

If you disagree, I suggest you provide an example. I realize that people have produced data and made observations that look consistent with the theory of evolution, e.g., the high level of genetic homology between humans and apes, but so long as these observations can be explained as being consistent with creation, such evidence can not be said to weigh in favour of evolutionary theory.
The point is not data that can be consistent, but rather the possibility of ever producing or discovering data that could exclude. Given the inability to know what if any material cause and effect limits (that is natural limits) might apply to some 'designer' we cannot possibily suggest that any result of any test falsifies the existence of that designer. That being the case science simply cannot address the existence of non-existence of such a designer.

I maintain that the supernatural has been dealt with by the evolutionary theory.
I dont see how that can be the case. Either the theory is incorrect or it is correct, but either way the theory does not neccessitate any supernatural aspect, rendering it amenable to scientific investigation.

Not by the scientific method, but by the theory of evolution.
In what way does the theory of evolution require (in order for it to be investigated) any addressing of the supernatural?

Thus my beef is not with the scientific method, but the theory of evolution. As I see it, so long as the current form of the theory of evolution prevails, which states that all of life came from a single ancestor, then this is restricting the interference of the supernatural to perhaps the creation of life (we cannot say), but certainly not the creation of humans. There lies the conflict.
It is not restricting the interference of a supernatural cause. It is simply not positing it as something that science can investigate.

To be precise, science does deal with the supernatural. The empirical method does not. The prevailing theory of evolution does.
No it doesnt deal with the supernatural. At the most it deals with things that may have an ultimate cause in the supernatural, but being unable to deal with such causes it does not do so.

A major point in the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory is that all of life arose from a single ancestor. This is another way of saying that the supernatural did not create humans as humans.
No it is not. Such a premise does not exclude supernatural causes of life, it does not exclude supernatural causes of material cause and effect, it does exclude the possibility of some supernatural cause/agent being entirely responsible for the entire process that is investigated.

I think it silly to assume that there are only natural causes.
No such assumption is required.

If, in trying to explain something, you rule out the possibility of anything other than natural causes, you make an unnecessary assumption.
No one need make such an assumption.

It would be far better to proceed with the investigation without making such an assumption, but allowing the possibility of supernatural causes AND natural causes. When it comes to attributing causes to an observation, one should be careful to rule out both natural law and randomness (two aspects of natural causes) before considering supernatural causes, just as we do when investigating a bomb blast (before it can be considered a crime scene).
Science doesnt assume anything whatsoever about the supernatural. It is simply not a tool that can address the supernatural. It is not an assumption, but rather a limitation.

Recently, in London, there were several bomb blasts. At first, the detectives were trying to decide if the bomb blasts were caused by some natural explanation (e.g, a natural cause) rather than the act of terrorism.
An act of terrorism is a natural cause...

Quite logically, when piecing together the information, they first ruled out the possibility of a natural law (given the exact same conditions, the multiple blasts would have occurred again). In this idea, there was the possibility of a build-up of gas that created multiple blasts caused by electrical sparking, which accounted for several almost simultaneous blasts. The second possibility was not even considered, in this case, since matter is not usually in the practice of exploding randomly. The third possibility was that the bomb blasts were designed as an act of terror. Even before supporting evidence was found, this third theory was the most widely held opinion, because both the first possibility (law) and the second possibility (randomness) were considered inadequate to explain such an event.
None of this is relevent so far as I can see.

My understanding of ID is that this is generally the process. It is only when law and randomness can be eliminated that intelligent design can be posited.
Well in that case since law and randomness have not been eliminated, ID should not yet be posited...?:confused:

When the intelligence cannot be attributed to a designer, then we are forced to return to randomness (such is the position of evolutionary theorists in trying to account for e.g. the creation of a new gene).
That would be just plain silly. Having already been eliminated as possible why would we return to something we already know cannot possibly be?

My argument is that I disagree with the ruling out of an intelligent designer,
Since such ruling out is not required or even possible in science, and since the theory of evolution does not require and in fact cannot address such a designer, your argument appears unfounded.

simply on the grounds that the scientific method cannot investigate the designer.
You are confusing 'this is not the right tool to address such an issue' with 'this tool somehow excludes thing X'.

Nor am I suggesting that we should try to investigate the supernatural with our useful little tool called the scientific method.
That's the whole point. Science cannot investigate the supernatural. It does not premise that the supernatural exists, it does not premise that everything has a natural cause. It does due to it's inherent limitations fail to address anything other than those things that conform to natural laws.

It was never designed to do that. What we are seeing in evolutionary theory is a preference for naturalistic explanations on the basis of bias, not evidence.
No, we are seeing scientific investigation. You seem to understand that science has limitations that exclude it from addressing certain things yet object to it not addressing those same things. That is self contrary. I have no idea how you expect science to both address and not address something that science's inherent limitations prevent it from addressing.

Grave_n_idle

20-10-2005, 04:35

Science *completely* ignores the existence or non-existence of g/God(s).

I didn't say science DISPROVES 'god'... such a thing, one assumes, MUST be impossible.

However, since there is no 'Empirical evidence' that 'supports' the reality of 'god', it is not unreasonable to state that the Empirical evidence 'denies' god.

Deny and disprove are not the same thing...

Bruarong

20-10-2005, 17:06

In terms of excluding the possibility of something, of course. The fact that probability is something other than zero is proof that it is possible so it is irrelevent for excluding that thing.
Agreed. However, we need to be able to distinguish between 'unlikely' and 'almost impossible'.

Courts of law do not operate in exact accordance with methodologies and axioms of science.

Exact accordance was never something I said. Simply that the humans that operate the courts of law are a lot like the humans that construct explanations in science. They both use their sense of judgement to determine the likely and unlikely, the believable and the unbelievable. We even put people away for life, in some cases, when the probability is low enough, whatever 'low enough' means.

And so? What has the imperfection of law got to do with whether or not probability either than zero can exclude possibility?

That would be a limitation of a system of law, rather than an imperfection. In a court of law, people realize that some things can never be proven, only supported to a high level of credibility.

An estimation is simply that, a good guess. The fact that people might choose to act on good guesses is a matter or human behaviour not a matter of logic and it's application to reality.

Guess does not equal estimation. They weren't guessing when they put people on the moon. But we are splitting hairs, perhaps.

For any good application of logic to occur it is neccessary to not assume that low odds means impossible. Improbable and impossible are not synomonous.

I have already agreed with this.

I know of no good reason to think otherwise. I know of no sound evidence to the contrary.

Sound evidence? How about the observation that we have never seen an example of the creation of a novel gene? I'm not talking about alleles. That is simply a variation between two copies of the same gene or gene group. What we need to see to support macroevolution is the creation of a novel gene, the generation of new information. This has yet to be demonstrated, observed, or even supported, and yet the whole theory of evolution rests on the possibility of this happening, and that it had to occur to produce every species alive today.

Well for a start your description is not entirely accurate. An allele need not confer any advantage whatsoever in order to arise and be duplicated. The fact is a change in a single base can result in the formation of a novel allele. Whether or not the allele confers any advantage on those who possess it is not relevent to whether or not the allele can come into existance. The fact that the allele is not advantageous does not neccessitate it ceasing to exist.

An allele is not a gene. Do not get them confused. An allele is a variation in information. A gene is a unit of information. A gene would be equivalent to a sentence in English, while an allele would be like capitalization of the first letter of the nouns.

Macro evolution is capable of producing hypotheses that can be tested. It may be that macro evolution is not in fact something that exists, that being the case with proper scientific investigation there is no concievable reason why we cannot eventually falisify it. The same is simply not true of designer that concievably is not limited by material cause and effect and outside the natural world (ie supernatural).

But what we have from the Bible is an account of creation. This has the potential to be falsified.

No it is not. Such a premise does not exclude supernatural causes of life, it does not exclude supernatural causes of material cause and effect, it does exclude the possibility of some supernatural cause/agent being entirely responsible for the entire process that is investigated.

Well, right there is the problem. I don't think it should make such an exclusion, particularly when I don't agree with the particular interpretation of the data.

Science doesnt assume anything whatsoever about the supernatural. It is simply not a tool that can address the supernatural. It is not an assumption, but rather a limitation.

I think the limitations on science means that an unbiased person would allow that evolution or creation (whether than be the Christian version or another) are both theories that should be considered. If science is limited, why is it that people have ruled out the creation stories?

An act of terrorism is a natural cause...

In fact, the terrorists are the designers. In my example, I was showing how we can detect design through scientific investigation, while not having anything to do with the supernatural. This is the position of ID, so far as I can see it. They do not try to measure the designer, as many suppose. They are claiming to detect design.

Well in that case since law and randomness have not been eliminated, ID should not yet be posited...?:confused:

The IDers believe that they can analyse the information systems found in living organisms to the point that law and randomness must be eliminated.

That would be just plain silly. Having already been eliminated as possible why would we return to something we already know cannot possibly be?

It is like a safety net. It means that, while we might have false negatives (e.g. we might call something that is designed undesigned), we will never get false positives (e.g. to call something that is undesigned designed).

Since such ruling out is not required or even possible in science, and since the theory of evolution does not require and in fact cannot address such a designer, your argument appears unfounded.

Have we not discussed already how the theory of evolution rules out the possibility of the supernatural creating humans as humans?

You are confusing 'this is not the right tool to address such an issue' with 'this tool somehow excludes thing X'.

On the contrary, I am not confused. I have maintained all along that the scientific method cannot address the supernatural. I have been arguing against the idea that the scientific method somehow does tell us that macroevolution has occurred. It is this idea, this philosophy that deals with the supernatural. Science consists of both philosophy and the scientific method. Depending on your favourite philosophical position or world view, you will interpret the information uncovered by the scientific method according to that view point.

That's the whole point. Science cannot investigate the supernatural. It does not premise that the supernatural exists, it does not premise that everything has a natural cause. It does due to it's inherent limitations fail to address anything other than those things that conform to natural laws.

When you say 'science', what you mean is the scientific method. As I pointed out before, science consists of both philosophy and the scientific method. An important distinction.

So, if everybody realised that, then perhaps nobody would be so sure about humans evolving from bacteria. The scientific method has certainly not been able to demonstrate or observe this. It is currently a philosophical assumption that is often mistaken for scientific fact.

No, we are seeing scientific investigation. You seem to understand that science has limitations that exclude it from addressing certain things yet object to it not addressing those same things. That is self contrary. I have no idea how you expect science to both address and not address something that science's inherent limitations prevent it from addressing.

What I believe is the logical conclusion to what I have been saying is that everyone should see a distinction between the philosophical positions that occur within the science community. I object to people claiming that science does not deal with the supernatural, and then saying that science shows that we have evolved from monkeys. This is the contradiction.

Economic Associates

20-10-2005, 17:12

But what we have from the Bible is an account of creation. This has the potential to be falsified..

Really? You know what you provide a hypothesis on creation from the bible account and I'll see if that hypothesis is falsifiable.

Bruarong

20-10-2005, 17:34

If you are trying to avoid debating statistics... might one suggest that you just stop debating statistics?

If only it were that easy. You see, there is a good deal of the argument tied up in the statistics.

You clearly don't have any understanding of what is at work here. We assess very real, but very low, probabilities every day... for example: the risks in insurance are based on (largely) naturally occuring physical events. Or the fact that there is a small chance that an Extinction Level Event will be spawned by a meteor/asteroid strike or some similar.

Your real but low probabilities would be rather higher probabilities compared to what I have been thinking of. For one, natural disasters and meteor strikes can and have been observed. Macroevolution, even the generation of a single novel gene, has not been observed.

"Too low" is balderdash - sorry. I'm just calling it how it is. You can't turn around and deny something just because YOU find it unlikely. As I have alluded to, I find 'god' unlikely... VERY unlikely.

You have to see it in context. A lamp falling off a coffee table of it's own accord is a probability that is so small that neither you or I would accept such a story from our kids. The possibility of the existence of God has to be altogether in a different category (although once again, that depends on the individual, I'll have to concede). At any rate, there are some probabilites that would get laughed out of town.

In fact, I'd say the probability of 'god' creating the world, was vanishingly small.
Thus, by your logic, 'god' can NOT have created the world.

I do not consider macroevolution to be wrong, just unlikely, based on what I understand of life. Correspondingly, you would have to say that you find the existence of God unlikely. You are entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you have a very good reason. Although I find it a bit strange if you would base your opinion on empirical evidence from the very limited scientific method which cannot investigate God.

Wrong again, I'm afraid.

'Science' is a discipline. 'Scientistsi are a community of humans.

And, since you are not sticking to the most basic precepts of science (and, in fact, seem to not even acknowledge them), I'm sorrry to say it, but your 'opinion' really is NOT as relevant as the 'next guy'.

Haha. That was amusing, Grave. Well, since you are interested specific definitions, perhaps we can go the the Wikipedia (unless you have a better source).
''Science refers to either:
Reasoned investigation or study of nature, aimed at finding out the truth. Such an investigation is normally felt to be necessarily methodical, or according to scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or
The organized body of knowledge gained by such research.''

In conclusion, I would have to say that this definition does indeed make it sound more like a discipline than a body of scientists. I'll have to concede that one.

But if you think you can write someone off as having irrelevant opinions simply because of an error like that one, I think you are the one with the bigger error. Are you claiming to be free of errors?

The Empirical evidence denies the existence of god... surely you realise this.

Cough, splutter!! What blatant assumptions are you throwing around now? Empirical evidence uncovered by a method which is too limited to address the issue of the supernatural is supposed to deny the existence of the supernatural. How can you not see your error?

Again, you are hoist by your own petard. Twice you have denied 'god' with your own peculiar brand of logic.

hardly

Not necessarily... however, I am NOT trying to shape science to suit my needs.

Anyone can make such a claim. But it flies in the face of your assertion that science denies the existence of God.

I don't really accept an open-edit-source as definitive, I'm afraid.

Personally, as far as I can see, evolution requires that life adapts from earlier life. It doesn't MATTER where the original life came from, or how many 'bits' it was in.

I'm afraid you (or Wikipedia) are confused over the limitations of evolutionary theory.

wow, claiming Wikipedia is wrong, and that you know it better than the evolutionary scientists is stretching things a little too far, isn't it? You sound more like me everyday. (that was a joke)
Seriously, if you disagree with the evolutionary theory, preferring a version of your own, then you have to have a basis for such a position, or a reason for it, at least. The whole point of all of life needing a single ancestor is that it would explain why there is so much similarity in, e.g., DNA coding frames, amino acids and life's strict preference for the 'L' amino acids, etc. (And the list is quite a long one.) Otherwise, if you have several origins of life, explaining these observations gets a bit tricky.

No - it IS a strawman. Evolution works just as well if there were one progenitor, or one million. What is important, in evolution, is that characteristics are genetically inherited, and certain attributes are 'acquired' through a survival of the most fit variants.

Apparently, you know your evolution better than the evolutionary scientists. Forgive me for doubting you.

Bruarong

20-10-2005, 17:46

But from what I see, you are not really talking about the supernatural being at all.

What I am hearing from your example is not "limiting the supernatural" but the literal interpretation of one specific religion's mythology being contradicted. What I hear is you limiting God to that one mythology by making a starting premise that it is the one truth. The people who allow for God to be the architect of evolution and accept evolution as fact limit God less than you do.

And what I am also hearing is that that religious mythology should be allowed to offer explanation for things.

It was not I that 'limited' God to the creation account. That would be the writers of the Bible. And since this account was written a long time before the discovery of the scientific method, those who change their understanding of the account to fit in with modern philosophies are the ones who have to provide satisfactory reasons for making those changes. I have not been doing the limiting because I have not changed anything, but simply accepted the account the way that I discovered it.

The point of mythology IMO is to understand the real meaning of things. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to use it as such to understand the evidence that is uncovered by the scientific method. What you have to see is that everyone has a world view. Everyone who believes in modern evolutionary theory is accepting a world view that is not based on empirical evidence, but is used to interpret empirical evidence. In that sense, I am no different to the evolutionists. I simply interpret the evidence based upon my 'mythology', not theirs. (Although when I say 'my mythology', I don't mean 'mine' in the sense that I made it up ad hoc, but that it is the one that I prefer and currently accept.)

Crackmajour

20-10-2005, 18:39

Your real but low probabilities would be rather higher probabilities compared to what I have been thinking of. For one, natural disasters and meteor strikes can and have been observed. Macroevolution, even the generation of a single novel gene, has not been observed.

Yes it has. Why do people always say it has not. It has several times. When I did my genetics degree I studied a newly arisen pesticide resistance gene if fruit flies and the 'hitch hiking' effect it had on the surrounding genes. Go and look at the research not just believing what you have been told!

Bruarong

20-10-2005, 18:41

Science never has and never will rule out a supernatural explanation because it's quite simply impossible. Science accepts the possibility of the supernatural, it just doesn't deal with it. If it cannot be observed either directly or indirectly then science leaves it alone.

Science does rule out supernatural explanations WHEN it discovers, observes, and demonstrates natural ones.

Third, so in other words, science is dealing with the most likely explanation from a scientific standpoint and you don't like it. Tough. You can't even define unlikely and you don't know what the number of workable outcomes or the number of attempts was. Unlikely is not a word that can be applied since you have no idea how unlikely it is. As far as novel genes, they have been observed, so it's not really difficult to buy into that little bit of the theory. Unless like many people who don't understand science you wish to redefine what a novel gene is.

If you persist in claiming that and example of the creation of a novel gene has been discovered, I insist that you give me a link to where it has been reported.

It is based on emperical evidence and they came up with the most likely explanation based on available evidence. If more evidence becomes available they will check to see if this remains the most reasonable explanation. It doesn't matter what the probability is when we know it happens.

Probability is always important. Sure, knowing probability depends on your knowledge of the process. But if a process is known, one should be very careful to calculate the probability of an explanation. To consider it irrelevent is sloppy and does not make for a persuasive argument.

You did suggest that the outcome was the only viable outcome when you suggested it could be used to suggest the probability of getting here. A probability that can't even so much as be estimated since you don't have enough information. Yet, you suggest it is a reason to reject evolution. In the post, however, you are suddenly changing your tune. It's nice to see someone actually bending to overwhelming evidence.

I have not rejected evolution. I have not changed my tune (in this point at least :), and sometimes changing your tune is a good thing. It means you are capable of learning).
Nowhere does my idea of probability calculations rely on humans having to be the only possible outcome of evolution.

Appears, in your opinion, to be improbable. Can you show the probability calculation? You can't? Because you don't have enough information? That's because your premise is ridiculous. You simply don't have the information to make the claims you are making. I love these types of comparisons. Like I said, what is the probability of me talking to you if you assume that this is the only possible outcome? Doesn't matter, however, since we know I am talking to you.

Neither could I show you the probability of a lamp falling over on its own accord. Does that mean I should believe it possible?

Still waiting for the calculation of probability that is based on emperical evidence.

I'm sure you can appreciate that sometimes such a calculation, while not possible because of a lack of information, is yet unnecessary for constructing an opinion. Your request is unreasonable. I could, however, dig up some calculations of the probability of 100 amino acids forming into a peptide. Wanna see that? it would be chemical evolution, rather than biological evolution, but the process of calculation would be the same (so far as I can see).

What observation points to a designer? Your made-up observation of probability? You are making huge leaps of logic and suggesting that anyone else who does not make them is being illogical. It's amusing at best, and sad at worst. Again, care to show how a supernatural explanation is more probable or has ANY evidence for it?

Did I ever accuse those who believe in evolutionary theory of being illogical? I doubt it. You are exaggerating.
And how am I to show you evidence from the scientific method for the supernatural when the definition of the method is one that can only investigate the natural world? I do understand that point, you know. One wonders if you are reading my posts.

And yes, all of the knowledge (with the exception of the knowledge you claim it has but science does not) is absolutely falsifiable.

Quite wrong. Evolutionary theory 'knows' that eukaryotes developed from prokaryotes. However, it is something that cannot be falsified. It is only the predictions that are based on this assumption that may be falsified. However, as we have seen time and again, a false prediction simply means a reordering of the theory, not a questioning of the validity of the theory.

You have yet to show any form of evidence other than your faith for how unreasonable this conclusion is. "It appears improbable to me" is not emperical evidence for debunking a theory. You're going to have to do better.

I'm not trying to debunk evolutionary theory. I am arguing that those who accept it do so on the basis of philosophy, not empirical evidence. Thus, my theory is equally as valid, because it is also based on a philosophical position.

"My" sort of science is science that relies on available emperical evidence for making conclusions and rules out not conclusion that can be reached based on the evidence. If evidence appears for a supernatural conclusion a supernatural conclusion will be reached. In the absence of evidence, science makes no conclusion, supernatural or otherwise. I'm sorry that you can't see the logic in this. Originally my statement agreed with you until demons came and reworded it.

Too many demons in 'your' type of science.

You would look for evidence that suggests otherwise which is what they currently do. They have made many changes to the various paths of evolution based on new evidence. To suggest otherwise is either ignorant or an outright lie.

Accusing people of lying is not becoming. Why don't you drop it? It is quite rude. You may accuse me of ignorance, if you wish. For I will tell you now, there are quite a lot of things that I am ignorant of. And if you do not know that you too are ignorant, you are more foolish than you think.

Wikipedia is incorrect. There are some that speculate on such a thing but, as there is no evidence for this, it is only speculation. It is not an accepted theory that all life evolved from a single organism.

The definitions within Wikipedia may be incorrect. They do, however, appear to be a consensus. Thus, when you and I disagree with those definitions, we know that we are disagreeing with the majority. It is a good idea to have a good reason for disagreeing. What is yours?

HA. The Biblical version doesn't say he created humans as humans. It's a description of the visions given the prophets. You have to make a lot of assumptions on both the purpose of the information given in the story, on the Bible as a whole and the original language to conclude otherwise.

It does say that God created Adam from the dust, and Eve from his rib. It may be read as taking many years of evolution, but there is no indication of this in the description given to/written by Moses. I am aware of the assumptions that one needs to make in order to interpret it this way. But it is possible to make good assumptions. At any rate, one cannot believe the Bible is from God without making such an assumption.

You think? So what prior evidence of God to we have suggest including him in theory? If you're going to say the Bible then Science has to addressing Hindu gods and whatnot as well.

Why not? Why not measure up the Hindu version (or any other version) of the origin of life to our current observations from the scientific method. I certainly have no problem with that. We discard any account that is shown false.

There was never any need to consider it a juggling act even before it was understood. Science bases conclusions on evidence and there was no evidence for the theory. Otherwise you put science in the position of slowly disproving God.

Or proving him, don't you mean? Surely, you do believe that God is true, don't you?

Really? Why would you expect them all to orbit in a single direction without making assumptions as to how they came together? What is you evidence for this? There is not a shred of evidence against the Big Bang.

There was certainly a big event. Whether it was a bang or not is highly debatable. If planets formed from swirling gases, it is unlikely that a moon and a planet formed together. Rather they would have formed separately, and the planet acquired the moon at a later date. Swirls of gases would have, as the theory goes, been in the same direction. Swirls would have determined the direction of rotation. Since we have a variety of directions of rotations within our solar system, it is highly unlikely (that word again) to have been brought about by a big bang (although not impossible). Once again, we are not dealing with hard evidence against the big bang, just very low odds. The question is if it is rational to believe them. Perhaps it requires something like belief, or faith.

Ha. And modern obstetric theory doesn't allow for a stork to deliver babies. We need to start ignoring evidence and starting working on faith. Stupid science, considering all the evidence that suggests the earth is older than some faiths believe and that there was life before humans which some faiths don't believe and that the earth revolves around the sun which some faiths didn't believe. Evidence is just tricks from the devil. God created the earth but had absolutely no control over the evidence or the laws of the universe, apparently. Ridiculous.

The problem with your example is that the delivery of babies can be observed, while the evolution of monkeys into humans cannot, and all the evidence is debatable. In fact, the current models we have appear unlikely at the molecular level.

There is NO evidence for a creation story. NONE. When there is it will be considered by science. PERIOD. Bias aside.

If I said, 'yes there is', would that negate your statement? Come on, do you really think that human consciousness can really be explained in terms of the same natural forces that formed a big bang? If not, there had to be some sort of creation event.

Ah, so you base your theories on evidence. If you have evidence that creation occurred trust me, I'd love to see it. You don't. No one does. That's why it's called faith. God expects us to have faith. We have a free will that angels can't have because they don't base their knowledge of the Lord on faith. We do. There is no proof of God. We have to accept it on faith. That's the whole point. You apparently missed that little lesson in Sunday school.

Faith does not mean the absence of evidence. Abraham talked with God. Does that mean he no longer had faith?

I used a designed example and said so. That's the point. There is order. Then I gave about a dozens examples of things that tend toward order with no design. In fact most designs we make are imitations of nature. If it was a simple as you say why is there weather? Why doesn't all water just fall to earth and stay there? Why does it reach an equilibrium with the atmosphere? Equilibrium, that's order. Ecosystems reach equilbrium without intelligence behind them. Beehives have order with no intelligence controlling them. Anthills, forests, rivers, oceans, planets going aroung the sun, moons going around the planets, planets, moons and the sun all revolving. It all smacks of order and there are perfectly natural explanations for these moves to order in every case (gravity, evaporation/condensation, order of complex systems). In fact, our biggest advances in intelligence came when we stopped trying to design artificial intelligence and started letting it develop by imitating natural systems. We forced order on artificial intelligence and fell far short. But we created a bunch of simple systems and placed them together like ants and they found order. The reached it and it was a more advance system than any we'd ever seen before. That's not using design, that's creating laws and letting things develop in their own way. Kind of throws a wrench in your whole theory, no?

One could argue that all of the observations you referred to are ordered BECAUSE of design. The intelligence that controls the beehives was placed in their genetic code by God. Equilibrium is the product of a natural law that was designed. My argument is that order comes from design. Ecosystems reach order BECAUSE of the design. Even crystals in rocks are evidence of a natural law that was designed. When we see a series of bombs going off in London, we see the order and look for designers. Why did we do that? Why isn't it more logical to persist in looking for randomness to explain the bombs?

Our biggest advances (as you call them, but I'm not so sure I would agree...what, for example is the design in nature that the computer is based upon?) in intelligence that come from imitating natural systems is precisely so because those systems were designed by an intelligence greater than ours.

Dempublicents1

20-10-2005, 18:42

In any case, my argument was against a theory that people claim does not place limitations on the supernatural.

By your twisted logic, every scientific theory "places limits upon the supernatural." The theory of gravity? Places limits upon the supernatural in that it suggests that God doesn't pull things down but lets a natural force do it. Also places limits on God in that it says that God doesn't randomly make things float upward.

The theories of thermodynamics? Places limits on the supernatural by suggesting that God doesn't introduce new entropy into the universe - but that spontaneous processes do that by a natural mechanism. Also suggests that God doesn't take entropy away.

The atomic model? Places limits on the supernatural by suggesting that God doesn't make gold one thing and diamond another by magic. Instead suggests that there is a natural process involved.

The interesting thing is that for those who believe in God and miracles and the Bible, they have no problem understanding my point of view. They see my logic as reasonable and cohesive. On the other hand, you have theistic evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, etc. who simply cannot understand the position, it seems, no matter how hard they try (if they try at all).

Wow, what an idiotic statement. It assumes that theistic evolutionists don't believe in God and miracles and the Bible. OOPS!

We understand your position just fine, my dear. We simply realize that it isn't scientific - not by a long shot.

Bruarong

20-10-2005, 18:44

Yes it has. Why do people always say it has not. It has several times. When I did my genetics degree I studied a newly arisen pesticide resistance gene if fruit flies and the 'hitch hiking' effect it had on the surrounding genes. Go and look at the research not just believing what you have been told!

That would be a transfer of information, not a creation of a new gene. The resistance gene either came from (1) another organism or (2) another gene within the same organism, in which a mutation was involved. However, in both these cases, the information was already there. The gene was already present. Thus, while a change has occurred, this is not a creation of a new gene.

Jocabia

20-10-2005, 18:46

wow, claiming Wikipedia is wrong, and that you know it better than the evolutionary scientists is stretching things a little too far, isn't it? You sound more like me everyday. (that was a joke)
Seriously, if you disagree with the evolutionary theory, preferring a version of your own, then you have to have a basis for such a position, or a reason for it, at least. The whole point of all of life needing a single ancestor is that it would explain why there is so much similarity in, e.g., DNA coding frames, amino acids and life's strict preference for the 'L' amino acids, etc. (And the list is quite a long one.) Otherwise, if you have several origins of life, explaining these observations gets a bit tricky.

Apparently, you know your evolution better than the evolutionary scientists. Forgive me for doubting you.

See, you're confused about this one. There is a lot of discussion centered around the idea that one ancestor explaining certain things but simply isn't enough evidence to support the assertion so it is not accepted by the scientific community in general. It's amusing that you take an idea that the scientific community does not accept and then use it as a reason to claim the scientific community is illogical for using the same reasons as you to not accept the 'one ancestor' hypothesis.

You keep claiming all this stuff about evolutionary scientists. Could you please link to some peer-reviewed papers that claim to validated a single ancestor? Can you show what scientists are claiming it is accepted theory? Can you support your claims with anything other than a open-edit source known for a little difficulty with the details. So far the only disagreeing with evolutionary scientists, particularly on what claims they've actually made, is you. GnI is disagreeing with wikipedia which hardly considered a scientific journal.

Crackmajour

20-10-2005, 18:50

That would be a transfer of information, not a creation of a new gene. The resistance gene either came from (1) another organism or (2) another gene within the same organism, in which a mutation was involved. However, in both these cases, the information was already there. The gene was already present. Thus, while a change has occurred, this is not a creation of a new gene.

No one gene had one function involved in the cell wall. This was duplicated ( a common mutation) which then mutated to not allow the pesticide to cross the cell wall. Fly don't have a gene transfer mechanism except within species (sex if you do not get the subtle hint). So a gene was already there but it changed function. This is the basis for evolution so if you accept that this can happen you have de facto accepted that evolution is possible.

Jocabia

20-10-2005, 18:51

Wow, what an idiotic statement. It assumes that theistic evolutionists don't believe in God and miracles and the Bible. OOPS!

We understand your position just fine, my dear. We simply realize that it isn't scientific - not by a long shot.

Everyone keeps stealing my replies. The funny part is this kid hasn't even read the Bible unless he's looking at the ancient languages. Current translations are known for have some difficulty expresses some of the finer points.

Bruarong

20-10-2005, 18:52

Wow, what an idiotic statement. It assumes that theistic evolutionists don't believe in God and miracles and the Bible. OOPS!

We understand your position just fine, my dear. We simply realize that it isn't scientific - not by a long shot.

Never did I say that theistic evolutionists don't believe in God and miracles and the Bible.
To be sure, some of them don't believe in miracles. But I didn't even say that. What I did say was that there are theistic evolutionists (and others) who do not understand my position. You may, Dem, or you may not. (Sometimes you post things that leave me doubting.) At any rate, I did mention that Willamena, who although is not a theistic evolutionist, to my knowledge, possibly shares less of the same beliefs that you and I share, is capable of understanding my position, particularly as she is persisting in reading my posts.

Thus I suggest your post in which you came out 'all guns blazing' was a bit over the top.

Bruarong

20-10-2005, 19:00

No one gene had one function involved in the cell wall. This was duplicated ( a common mutation) which then mutated to not allow the pesticide to cross the cell wall. Fly don't have a gene transfer mechanism except within species (sex if you do not get the subtle hint). So a gene was already there but it changed function. This is the basis for evolution so if you accept that this can happen you have de facto accepted that evolution is possible.

Hmmm, interesting, to be honest, I have never heard of that one. Will have to read up on it. Do you have a link?

At any rate, perhaps this may be a way of 'creating' a new gene. (I'll accept it when I have read it for myself--not that I think you are dishonest, but one cannot be too careful.) But in this case, the duplication and mutation of the gene was preserved, because it gave the organism an advantage. Furthermore all of the necessary 'equipment' for transcription and translation was already present, making the event quite a lot more probable than a scenario without it. However, taking this example to explain all of macroevolution does not account for the development of new information. Strictly speaking, there is a new gene, but the information for that gene was already there, thus it is not the creation of new information.

Jocabia

20-10-2005, 19:27

Science does rule out supernatural explanations WHEN it discovers, observes, and demonstrates natural ones.

Yes, it's much more important to accept something we have no evidence for and present it as a valid theory. How about tell children that the earth popped out of the butt of giant cow? You weren't there when it happened so how do you know it didn't?

If you persist in claiming that and example of the creation of a novel gene has been discovered, I insist that you give me a link to where it has been reported.

It has been linked in this thread several times. Your response was nuh-uh.

Probability is always important. Sure, knowing probability depends on your knowledge of the process. But if a process is known, one should be very careful to calculate the probability of an explanation. To consider it irrelevent is sloppy and does not make for a persuasive argument.

Great. Can you tell me what the exact probability of the event you are claiming is so unlikely as to be near impossible is? Our claim is that it cannot be calculated because there is too much information missing. Things that are likely to be the case, but that you claim are not the case. The only one who claims that the probability can be calculated is you, so let's see those numbers, buddy.

I have not rejected evolution. I have not changed my tune (in this point at least :), and sometimes changing your tune is a good thing. It means you are capable of learning).

I agree and I commend you on doing so (to the learning part).

Nowhere does my idea of probability calculations rely on humans having to be the only possible outcome of evolution.

Ok, well, let's see the calculations then and we can talk about the assumptions.

Neither could I show you the probability of a lamp falling over on its own accord. Does that mean I should believe it possible?

Oh, so now you can't show the probability of the evolutionary theory? Strange, just a moment ago you said you could.

I'm sure you can appreciate that sometimes such a calculation, while not possible because of a lack of information, is yet unnecessary for constructing an opinion. Your request is unreasonable. I could, however, dig up some calculations of the probability of 100 amino acids forming into a peptide. Wanna see that? it would be chemical evolution, rather than biological evolution, but the process of calculation would be the same (so far as I can see).

Ok. I'd like to see that.

Did I ever accuse those who believe in evolutionary theory of being illogical? I doubt it. You are exaggerating.

You're right. You only claimed the theory is illogical. People who believe in illogical theories are actually incredibly logical people who have a momentary blindspot due to faith. Whoops, I started talking about you for a minute there. We were supposed to be talking about scientists.

And how am I to show you evidence from the scientific method for the supernatural when the definition of the method is one that can only investigate the natural world? I do understand that point, you know. One wonders if you are reading my posts.

You keep claiming it is dealing in the supernatural. If you realize it doesn't then why do you make the claim?

Quite wrong. Evolutionary theory 'knows' that eukaryotes developed from prokaryotes. However, it is something that cannot be falsified. It is only the predictions that are based on this assumption that may be falsified. However, as we have seen time and again, a false prediction simply means a reordering of the theory, not a questioning of the validity of the theory.

Links, please. And reordering a theory or completely changing it based on evidence is science. If I find your blood all over the scene of a crime and I think you stabbed the person to death with a particular knife that also has blood on it, then I find out from forensics that the knife doesn't fit the wound I don't suddenly say, "gee, I guess I was mistaken. See ya later, buddy, and try to keep your blood out of my crime scene." Nope. I amend my theory to include the new information if it is possible and if it is not I create a new theory. Or I could just throw it all out and blame in on demons. It would save taxpayer money if nothing else.

I'm not trying to debunk evolutionary theory. I am arguing that those who accept it do so on the basis of philosophy, not empirical evidence. Thus, my theory is equally as valid, because it is also based on a philosophical position.

Yet, you've shown no evidence for a more valid theory while you've been shown a MOUNTAIN of evidence for the current theory. Show one thing that absolutely goes against the ACTUAL current theory and I'll consider it invalid. If you showed equal evidence for the creation story you adhere to I would change to think it was true right now.

Too many demons in 'your' type of science.

Way to avoid the point. It's a good idea to avoid that point anyway, because it makes it really difficult to keep claiming your strawmen about how science is dealing in the supernatural by not leaving the possibility of your theory.

Accusing people of lying is not becoming. Why don't you drop it? It is quite rude. You may accuse me of ignorance, if you wish. For I will tell you now, there are quite a lot of things that I am ignorant of. And if you do not know that you too are ignorant, you are more foolish than you think.

I didn't accuse you of lying. I accused you of either arguing without knowing that your argument is unfounded or lying. It is, in fact, one or the other. And I don't consider ignorant an insult if it is a statement of fact. It appears you don't as well. We're agreed.

The definitions within Wikipedia may be incorrect. They do, however, appear to be a consensus. Thus, when you and I disagree with those definitions, we know that we are disagreeing with the majority. It is a good idea to have a good reason for disagreeing. What is yours?

You like things that 'appear' to be true. Why don't you try looking it up? Link to a single paper or journal that makes the claim that a single ancestor has been adequately supported. Wikipedia does represent the consensus of scientists. I suspect that most scientist view Wikipedia with a great deal of mistrust, as I do.

It does say that God created Adam from the dust, and Eve from his rib. It may be read as taking many years of evolution, but there is no indication of this in the description given to/written by Moses. I am aware of the assumptions that one needs to make in order to interpret it this way. But it is possible to make good assumptions. At any rate, one cannot believe the Bible is from God without making such an assumption.

Not true. One can believe the Bible is from God and that Moses used the words available to him. There are also descriptions of future wars in the Bible, but magically not reference to a gun or a helicopter or a jet. Maybe because the Prophets who saw those visions didn't know what a gun, helicopter or jet was. So they called them things like fire-breathing locusts.

Why not? Why not measure up the Hindu version (or any other version) of the origin of life to our current observations from the scientific method. I certainly have no problem with that. We discard any account that is shown false.

Like man springing up whole from the ground in a time frame that is after the time we have found skeletons? Like religious theories that claim the age of the earth is around 6000 years old despite all evidence to the contrary?

Why not is easy? Because science has not interest in attacking people's faiths. If the ideas are scientific that just as easily be reached through scientific methods.

Or proving him, don't you mean? Surely, you do believe that God is true, don't you?

Yes, I believe he exists. However, if we make claims about what God did that are false and then are proven to be false we science in the position of slowly disproving him. God will never be proven by science nor is supposed to be. You do know what faith is, no?

There was certainly a big event. Whether it was a bang or not is highly debatable. If planets formed from swirling gases, it is unlikely that a moon and a planet formed together. Rather they would have formed separately, and the planet acquired the moon at a later date. Swirls of gases would have, as the theory goes, been in the same direction. Swirls would have determined the direction of rotation. Since we have a variety of directions of rotations within our solar system, it is highly unlikely (that word again) to have been brought about by a big bang (although not impossible). Once again, we are not dealing with hard evidence against the big bang, just very low odds. The question is if it is rational to believe them. Perhaps it requires something like belief, or faith.

WOW. I can only shake my head. Yes, the Big Bang refers to the sound that was made at the time of the event. Wow, just wow.

Again you mention low odds. Can you calculate those odds, please? Can you list the basis for assuming those odds?

The problem with your example is that the delivery of babies can be observed, while the evolution of monkeys into humans cannot, and all the evidence is debatable. In fact, the current models we have appear unlikely at the molecular level.

So anything we can't directly observe has no evidence. Ridiculous.

If I said, 'yes there is', would that negate your statement? Come on, do you really think that human consciousness can really be explained in terms of the same natural forces that formed a big bang? If not, there had to be some sort of creation event.

Which could just as easily be explained by God creating the universe and man through natural forces, unless you don't think God is capable of doing so?

Faith does not mean the absence of evidence. Abraham talked with God. Does that mean he no longer had faith?

Faith means it does not really on evidence. And yes, I do believe that once you talk to God you know longer have faith. I don't have faith in my hands. I have knowledge of my hands.

One could argue that all of the observations you referred to are ordered BECAUSE of design. The intelligence that controls the beehives was placed in their genetic code by God. Equilibrium is the product of a natural law that was designed. My argument is that order comes from design. Ecosystems reach order BECAUSE of the design. Even crystals in rocks are evidence of a natural law that was designed. When we see a series of bombs going off in London, we see the order and look for designers. Why did we do that? Why isn't it more logical to persist in looking for randomness to explain the bombs?

Ok. So couldn't evolution also be ordered because of design or did you miss that little tidbit?

Our biggest advances (as you call them, but I'm not so sure I would agree...what, for example is the design in nature that the computer is based upon?) in intelligence that come from imitating natural systems is precisely so because those systems were designed by an intelligence greater than ours.

Certainly possible. In fact, I believe it to be so. However, I don't limit that greater intelligence like you do. He allows order to develop right before our eyes through entirely natural forces. Why would have to believe he couldn't have done it with evolution as well, through entirely natural forces? I said our biggest advances in the study of intelligence, not overall.

Grave_n_idle

20-10-2005, 20:09

If only it were that easy. You see, there is a good deal of the argument tied up in the statistics.

And, since you don't seem to be able to understand that a probability has NO VALUE after the event has taken place, perhaps you'd be better served ignoring statistics?

What you are doing, basically, is saying a thing cannot have happened because YOU think it is unlikely... you are, in essence, Appealing to Ridicule, which is a logical fallacy.

It isn't helping your argument.

Your real but low probabilities would be rather higher probabilities compared to what I have been thinking of. For one, natural disasters and meteor strikes can and have been observed. Macroevolution, even the generation of a single novel gene, has not been observed.

And, yet - the two mechanisms that would be required to form an entirely NEW (extra) gene HAVE been observed, and could easily happen together.

You have to see it in context. A lamp falling off a coffee table of it's own accord is a probability that is so small that neither you or I would accept such a story from our kids. The possibility of the existence of God has to be altogether in a different category (although once again, that depends on the individual, I'll have to concede). At any rate, there are some probabilites that would get laughed out of town.

I consider the probability of 'god' to be zero. Thus - 'god' is MORE unlikely than 'a lamp falling off a table'.

But, that is just 'probability'. I speak NOTHING to the 'possibility' of 'god'.

I do not consider macroevolution to be wrong, just unlikely, based on what I understand of life. Correspondingly, you would have to say that you find the existence of God unlikely. You are entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you have a very good reason. Although I find it a bit strange if you would base your opinion on empirical evidence from the very limited scientific method which cannot investigate God.

That is surely the whole point. Science CANNOT investigate 'god'. Therefore, there can BE no 'empirical evidence'. And, how can one calculate a probability based on NO evidence?

Haha. That was amusing, Grave. Well, since you are interested specific definitions, perhaps we can go the the Wikipedia (unless you have a better source).
''Science refers to either:
Reasoned investigation or study of nature, aimed at finding out the truth. Such an investigation is normally felt to be necessarily methodical, or according to scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or
The organized body of knowledge gained by such research.''

In conclusion, I would have to say that this definition does indeed make it sound more like a discipline than a body of scientists. I'll have to concede that one.

But if you think you can write someone off as having irrelevant opinions simply because of an error like that one, I think you are the one with the bigger error. Are you claiming to be free of errors?

My argument against Wikipedia is that it is UNREGULATED, and Open-Edit. That means, you or I could change the content of the site.

Try something peer-reviewed.

Cough, splutter!! What blatant assumptions are you throwing around now? Empirical evidence uncovered by a method which is too limited to address the issue of the supernatural is supposed to deny the existence of the supernatural. How can you not see your error?

No error. As I said... it 'denies' the presence of 'god'... it does not 'disprove' it.

wow, claiming Wikipedia is wrong, and that you know it better than the evolutionary scientists is stretching things a little too far, isn't it? You sound more like me everyday. (that was a joke)
Seriously, if you disagree with the evolutionary theory, preferring a version of your own, then you have to have a basis for such a position, or a reason for it, at least. The whole point of all of life needing a single ancestor is that it would explain why there is so much similarity in, e.g., DNA coding frames, amino acids and life's strict preference for the 'L' amino acids, etc. (And the list is quite a long one.) Otherwise, if you have several origins of life, explaining these observations gets a bit tricky.

Wikipedia might be right... but it is open-edit. Thus, it is not peer-reviewed... and certainly not a 'secure' source.

You appeal to only ONE possible theory.

The theory I see most commonly, is the assumption that life started in very similar circumstances. You can cause certain chirality of molecules by creating identical conditions, which would work just as well for life forms as for pharmaceuticals.

So - we don't need ONE ancestor... or even ONE starting point... just very similar circustances wherever and whenever the first 'life' forms.

Apparently, you know your evolution better than the evolutionary scientists. Forgive me for doubting you.

Again - you have yet to hit me with peer-review.

Avalon II

20-10-2005, 20:20

I consider the probability of 'god' to be zero. Thus - 'god' is MORE unlikely than 'a lamp falling off a table'

Grave, you cant apply a probability arguement to God. So shut up thinking you can. How exactly do you intend to prove that the probability of Gods existance is zero?

Jocabia

20-10-2005, 20:29

Never did I say that theistic evolutionists don't believe in God and miracles and the Bible.

Ah, yet, more difficulties with logic.

Let's examine. I'll seperate out the statements just to make the logic more apparent.

The interesting thing is that for those who believe in God and miracles and the Bible, they have no problem understanding my point of view.

On the other hand, you have theistic evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, etc. who simply cannot understand the position, it seems, no matter how hard they try (if they try at all).

Let's see one group can easily understand you and one can't understand you at all. Logic would say that you must be claiming that they are mutually exclusive as you can't both easily understand you and not understand you at all. You also use the term 'on the other hand' which suggests you are talking about a completely different group. Therefore, you did say that theistic evolutionist don't believe in God and miracles and the Bible as read by anyone capable of even a modicum of logic. You stand corrected.

Jocabia

20-10-2005, 20:32

Grave, you cant apply a probability arguement to God. So shut up thinking you can. How exactly do you intend to prove that the probability of Gods existance is zero?

He didn't. Pay attention. He pointed out that probability is not an argument at all, it's a subjective statement unless there is math to support it. In the case of the poster he is replying to, there is no math. In the case of God, there also is no math. So he was pointing out it's a nonsensical argument.

Grave_n_idle

20-10-2005, 20:35

Grave, you cant apply a probability arguement to God. So shut up thinking you can. How exactly do you intend to prove that the probability of Gods existance is zero?

Wasn't that most of the point of the posts I've been making? That 'probability' is actually irrelevent when we are talking about 'god'?

To ME - the probability is zero... and the 'proof' of that is simple.

What is the probability of me spontaneously turning into a burning-weasel covered in jam?

Pretty low, right?

I might go so far as to say that I consider THAT probability to be close to zero... if not ACTUALLY zero... yes?

Why?

Because, in all my years, I have never once seen it happen. Or heard of it happening. Or read an account of it happening.

So - there is no EMPIRICAL evidence that people spontaneously turn into burning-weasels covered in jam. Do we understand?

So - no empirical evidence = effectively zero probability.

Now, since there is NO empirical evidence for the existence of a 'god' (much LESS, the one 'god' claimed variously by the Hebrews, Christians, Muslims and Baha'i), the PROBABILITY of 'god' must also be effectively zero.

Note: I am not saying 'god' is impossible. Or even, that I believe he doesn't exist. I am just saying he is not at all 'probable'.

Which, when you think about it, is a necessary requirement of 'god', is it not?

Grave_n_idle

20-10-2005, 20:36

He didn't. Pay attention. He pointed out that probability is not an argument at all, it's a subjective statement unless there is math to support it. In the case of the poster he is replying to, there is no math. In the case of God, there also is no math. So he was pointing out it's a nonsensical argument.

Exactly.

Only in much more condensed format than I managed.... :)

Jocabia

20-10-2005, 20:47

Exactly.

Only in much more condensed format than I managed.... :)

I'm waiting for you to get into the rather unsupported statements by some in this thread that if you say anything other than man jumped out of the ground whole you are negating God. I know how you love explaining about the creation accounts in the Bible. I could do it, but you're so much better at it.

Crackmajour

21-10-2005, 09:07

Hmmm, interesting, to be honest, I have never heard of that one. Will have to read up on it. Do you have a link?

At any rate, perhaps this may be a way of 'creating' a new gene. (I'll accept it when I have read it for myself--not that I think you are dishonest, but one cannot be too careful.) But in this case, the duplication and mutation of the gene was preserved, because it gave the organism an advantage. Furthermore all of the necessary 'equipment' for transcription and translation was already present, making the event quite a lot more probable than a scenario without it. However, taking this example to explain all of macroevolution does not account for the development of new information. Strictly speaking, there is a new gene, but the information for that gene was already there, thus it is not the creation of new information.

Sorry whats this about information? Lots of people bring it up. How do you define information? Why does the introduction of a new function not increase the amount of information. The mechanism I talked about is how scientists believe evolution happens. That is small cumulative steps, with the ones that don't work in the particular environment that the organism finds itself in are removed through natural selection. I mean that is a very simplified version of events.

I will try and find a link but the work I did was three years ago! (not get old damn it I am not!)

I would appriciate your interpretation of what would be classed as new information, just so I can understand your position.

Anthil

21-10-2005, 10:20

The most recent development I could find:

www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

To be followed with interest!

And just to add a few comments on the issue the not too recent essay by T. Huxley:

www.phy.ilstu.edu/programs/ptefiles/310content/nature/huxley.html

or the more recent Dawkins review:

http://ruthlessreviews.com/books/d/devilschaplain.html
to be found at
www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/external-search/026-5159582-0629244?keyword=A+Devil%27s+Chaplain&mode=blended&tag=pauladriaenss-21&Submit.x=10&Submit.y=11

GMC Military Arms

21-10-2005, 12:27

<some links>

Do you want to present an argument based on those links now?

Dakini

21-10-2005, 12:38

The most recent development I could find:

www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

To be followed with interest!
It's going to be absolutely disgusting if the intelligent design cretins win that one.

Someone with a PhD in biology should camp out outside their churches on a milk crate and deliver a lecture on evolution. Perhaps set up a power point presentation on the side of the church too.

Willamena

21-10-2005, 13:32

I do not consider macroevolution to be wrong, just unlikely, based on what I understand of life.
Since macroevolution is just compounded stages of microevolution, I do not understand why you consider it so improbable. Can you explain?

Bruarong

21-10-2005, 14:13

And, since you don't seem to be able to understand that a probability has NO VALUE after the event has taken place, perhaps you'd be better served ignoring statistics?

It does have value if we are still in the process of trying to determine how a process took place. Simply because we can observe life, it doesn't mean that we should accept evolution as a satisfactory explanation. Otherwise, you end up saying 'Did life evolve? Oh look, we can observe life! Oh well, then, it must have evolved.'' Rather, we need to understand the details of process of life evolving through evolution (we don't) before we can calculate the probability of it happening. But since we cannot do this, my argument is to use one's intuition and current understanding of biology to make a judgement on whether evolution is likely, possible, or probable. If you insist on holding to that position, you have to see that your opinion is not based on empirical evidence, but on your personal philosophical position.

What you are doing, basically, is saying a thing cannot have happened because YOU think it is unlikely... you are, in essence, Appealing to Ridicule, which is a logical fallacy.

It isn't helping your argument.

No, I am not ridiculing the theory of evolution. Neither do I say that it cannot have happened. I find it unlikely, improbable, appearing to be impossible, but I have never ridiculed the theory, neither do I say that I know that life did not come about through evolution. I am simply presenting my argument, and certainly have no wish to prevent you from holding yours. By presenting my opinion, I am inviting anyone to criticise it. No need for ridicule.

And, yet - the two mechanisms that would be required to form an entirely NEW (extra) gene HAVE been observed, and could easily happen together.

The generation of a new gene has been detected, but whether this can explain macroevolution is a matter of debate. So far, what we have seen is more like the generation of a new allele, rather than a new gene. It's taking an old gene and modifying it. But the question is over the likelyhood of genes modified in this manner explaining very complex developments like the organisation of a bee hive, or the consciousness of humans.

I consider the probability of 'god' to be zero. Thus - 'god' is MORE unlikely than 'a lamp falling off a table'.

But, that is just 'probability'. I speak NOTHING to the 'possibility' of 'god'.

You obviously think that there is no God, since I cannot imagine how you could consider a lamp might fall off a table on its own accord. Your position seems to be that while God is possible, you are more confident about the non-existence of an invisible supernatural than you are about the existence of the natural world. Isn't that point of view approaching a religious postion?

That is surely the whole point. Science CANNOT investigate 'god'. Therefore, there can BE no 'empirical evidence'. And, how can one calculate a probability based on NO evidence?

Which was my point. Now that we can agree on a point, we can leave it behind and move on.

My argument against Wikipedia is that it is UNREGULATED, and Open-Edit. That means, you or I could change the content of the site.

Try something peer-reviewed.

Try reading these links. I found them by typing ''single ancestor for the origin of life'' in Google:
http://www.azinet.com/originoflife.html
http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/litu/02_1.shtml
http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/litu/03_1.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3086681.stm
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html

From one of the sites: (calspace.ucsd.edu)
''The question about Life's origins arises because of the following observations:

All known living things have a parent.
All known living things have the same basic machinery for replication.
All known living things are made of the same kinds of substances, favoring certain selected types of carbon molecules.
Many living things are represented by fossils in the geologic record in such a fashion that the younger rocks bear the remains of the more familiar organisms.
Very ancient rocks bear no fossils that are similar to modern animals or plants; the oldest rocks contain only microfossils.

From these observations we make the following scientific inferences:

There is an unbroken chain of ancestry for each organism on the planet.
All known organisms are somehow related by genetic code.
All known organisms are somehow related by carbon chemistry.
Offspring differ from ancestors and the difference increases with the number of generations.
Modern plants and animals have single-celled primitive ancestors.''

I couldn't find anything supporting more than one origin of life. All of the articles apparently supported life arising once, since it is far too unlikely an event to have happened several times.

No error. As I said... it 'denies' the presence of 'god'... it does not 'disprove' it.

How can you say that? What is your argument?
I would rather say that the evidence is compatible with the presence of God. It doesn't disprove or deny.

Wikipedia might be right... but it is open-edit. Thus, it is not peer-reviewed... and certainly not a 'secure' source.

You appeal to only ONE possible theory.

Come on, read the literature. Nobody (that I have read) seems to be positing more than one common ancestor. Now it is your turn to find some links that support your idea of life arising more than once. And when you have found it, perhaps you need to argue why it is a better theory. And then you will have to convince me that your idea of more than one common ancestor is a more prevalent idea than that of a single common ancestor. Even then, what is the point? My argument was against the idea of evolution in general. I don't think it really matters much if you believe in one common ancestor or many. The point is, you can argue or believe what you like, but in the end, it is a belief based on reason, not empirical evidence, which has been my point all along.

The theory I see most commonly, is the assumption that life started in very similar circumstances. You can cause certain chirality of molecules by creating identical conditions, which would work just as well for life forms as for pharmaceuticals.

The problem is that amino acids with both L and R chirality can polymerize. It just so happens that the enzymes of life don't use the R chiral acids.

So - we don't need ONE ancestor... or even ONE starting point... just very similar circustances wherever and whenever the first 'life' forms.

I see your point. And I agree. There doesn't need to be one ancestor. But it seems to be the most prevalent idea, perhaps because life arising more than one from non-life is less likely than life arising only once.

Willamena

21-10-2005, 14:30

Originally Posted by Willamena
But from what I see, you are not really talking about the supernatural being at all.

What I am hearing from your example is not "limiting the supernatural" but the literal interpretation of one specific religion's mythology being contradicted. What I hear is you limiting God to that one mythology by making a starting premise that it is the one truth. The people who allow for God to be the architect of evolution and accept evolution as fact limit God less than you do.

And what I am also hearing is that that religious mythology should be allowed to offer explanation for things.
It was not I that 'limited' God to the creation account. That would be the writers of the Bible. And since this account was written a long time before the discovery of the scientific method, those who change their understanding of the account to fit in with modern philosophies are the ones who have to provide satisfactory reasons for making those changes. I have not been doing the limiting because I have not changed anything, but simply accepted the account the way that I discovered it.

The point of mythology IMO is to understand the real meaning of things. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to use it as such to understand the evidence that is uncovered by the scientific method. What you have to see is that everyone has a world view. Everyone who believes in modern evolutionary theory is accepting a world view that is not based on empirical evidence, but is used to interpret empirical evidence. In that sense, I am no different to the evolutionists. I simply interpret the evidence based upon my 'mythology', not theirs. (Although when I say 'my mythology', I don't mean 'mine' in the sense that I made it up ad hoc, but that it is the one that I prefer and currently accept.)
But you have done the limiting, because you are the one who chooses the literal interpretation of the Bible to be the truth over the varied non-literal interpretations, by simply accepted the account the way that you discovered it. The mythological understanding is the non-literal one. For instance, is the story of Noah's Ark really about the flood and a ship full of animals? or is it about salvation, with the flood and animals as story elements to lead one to that truth? The former is a literal reading, the latter a non-literal one. If you choose to look at only one interpretation, then it's you who does the limiting. Not that that's a bad thing; it's natural.

I would think that's one reason we provide mythological faces for god, to limit it to something comprehendable.

The whole point of finding "real meaning" in mythology is for the readers to fit it in with their philosophy. That is what provides it significance, and meaningful reality.

I don't understand your claim that mythology can be used to understand the evidence uncovered by the scientific method (i.e. you are actually proposing using the story elements). The non-literal understanding stands in contrast to the conclusions garnered from empirical evidence; it is garnered from the story elements, not from scientific investigation. The literal interpretation of mythology very often does not make sense, simply because it is irrational to take the story elements as real. But the non-literal interpretation stands apart, regardless of what story elements are chosen to bring it out in the reader (to lead the reader down a responsive path towards it).

Could Noah have fit two of all the animals that survived the flood into the Ark? It makes no sense when literally read, and the geographical isolation of some of the animals makes it improbable. As a story element, though, that leads the reader to a non-literal understanding of salvation, it is perfectly acceptable.

"Everyone who believes in modern evolutionary theory is accepting a world view that is not based on empirical evidence, but is used to interpret empirical evidence." That is the beauty of scientific speculation --we know its rules can apply to evidence with a speculative existence, because the speculative existence of that thing is of a natural thing, and the rules of science uncover natural things. There is ALWAYS the possibility that that speculative evidence will be found, because all of nature can be known. We just have to get there (in the case of history, through digging). There is nothing supernatural about it.

The strict natural rules of science cannot apply to supernatural things. Still, people would prefer to think that his speculative existence remains possible; and working backwards from there, that he must be subject to scientific investigation one day. And why not today? This is IMO the world view ID supporters are working from.

(PS: Nit-pick; "evolutionary theory" is an incorrect term as a substitute for the "Theory of Evolution", because while the theory is an evolutionary one (changing and growing), ALL theories in science are evolutionary also.)

Jocabia

21-10-2005, 14:32

From one of the sites: (calspace.ucsd.edu)
''The question about Life's origins arises because of the following observations:

All known living things have a parent.
All known living things have the same basic machinery for replication.
All known living things are made of the same kinds of substances, favoring certain selected types of carbon molecules.
Many living things are represented by fossils in the geologic record in such a fashion that the younger rocks bear the remains of the more familiar organisms.
Very ancient rocks bear no fossils that are similar to modern animals or plants; the oldest rocks contain only microfossils.

From these observations we make the following scientific inferences:

There is an unbroken chain of ancestry for each organism on the planet.
All known organisms are somehow related by genetic code.
All known organisms are somehow related by carbon chemistry.
Offspring differ from ancestors and the difference increases with the number of generations.
Modern plants and animals have single-celled primitive ancestors.''

I couldn't find anything supporting more than one origin of life. All of the articles apparently supported life arising once, since it is far too unlikely an event to have happened several times.

Really should read your own source.

"Was there just one life form at the beginning among many possible other ones? Did the form or forms that became the ancestor or ancestors to all succeeding life forms emerge by competition or by luck? As a single survivor? Or as an alliance between several different early life forms? How do we get from self-replicating molecules to self-replicating cells? Is this such a rare event that it might only have happened once, or are there other places in the universe where it did or could have happened? Are we, that is Life on Earth, extremely special?

There are no fossils from the earliest history of Earth that will give us clues to these questions. However, we might pick up such clues from the things living organisms have in common. A common ancestor should have had those very attributes. "

From the same source you quoted. Basically to sum up what it said he said we don't have the answers or enough evidence to arrive at an answer but a common ancestor is one possibility. That's why you'll notice the word "should". Also, notice this question - "Did the form or forms that became the ancestor or ancestors". Notice anything important? Ancestor or ANCESTORS. There is not enough evidence to conclude one or the other, so some BELIEVE one and some BELIEVE the other based on logic but there is not a prevailing theory supported by evidence, just as we have said since the beginning of the thread.

Brenchley

21-10-2005, 20:17

The problem is that amino acids with both L and R chirality can polymerize. It just so happens that the enzymes of life don't use the R chiral acids.

The problem is that L and R are exclusive. A creature made of L would get no nourishment from R based food. It is rather like the matter-antimatter split following the Big Bang - matter dominated by a small margin and won out.

I see your point. And I agree. There doesn't need to be one ancestor. But it seems to be the most prevalent idea, perhaps because life arising more than one from non-life is less likely than life arising only once.

http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/biology.html

Quote: Even if several living molecules came into existence independently at the beginning, it Is very likely that the most efficient one would have outbred the others, so that all life today may very well be descended from a single original molecule.

Willamena

21-10-2005, 20:20

Originally Posted by Jocabia
And yes, all of the knowledge (with the exception of the knowledge you claim it has but science does not) is absolutely falsifiable.
Quite wrong. Evolutionary theory 'knows' that eukaryotes developed from prokaryotes. However, it is something that cannot be falsified. It is only the predictions that are based on this assumption that may be falsified. However, as we have seen time and again, a false prediction simply means a reordering of the theory, not a questioning of the validity of the theory.
If this progression from eukaryotes to prokaryotes has not been observed or demonstrated, then it is the prediction. And the theory that predicts it will be amended if it turns out to be incorrect. That is scientific "knowing".

I suppose further predictions may be made on this prediction, but if one is disproven by new evidence the subsequent chain collapses and all the predictions along with it would be thrown out. There is no such thing as a "false" prediction, there is simply a prediction that may be supported or disproved. If it is supported, the theory is not altered; if disproven, then the theory is. This is a good thing.

Too many demons in 'your' type of science.
Demons are an example of the supernatural. They are every bit as good an example to explain supernatural contributions to natural phenomenon as god (i.e. they contribute no information).

One could argue that all of the observations you referred to are ordered BECAUSE of design. The intelligence that controls the beehives was placed in their genetic code by God. Equilibrium is the product of a natural law that was designed.
One could argue that, but why would one want to? It introduces no new information and, in fact, stops the progress of a scientific investigation cold. How can the explanation be refined anymore than what you have offered? It cannot.

At any rate, I did mention that Willamena, who although is not a theistic evolutionist, to my knowledge, possibly shares less of the same beliefs that you and I share, is capable of understanding my position, particularly as she is persisting in reading my posts.
I consider myself to be a theist, though I do not mistake the mythological image of God for being the real god. And I do support the Theory of Evolution (if that makes me an 'evolutionist' in the vernacular, so be it). But, I think I am as far from understanding your position as Dempublicents is. :)

Willamena

21-10-2005, 20:53

My argument is that order comes from design. Ecosystems reach order BECAUSE of the design. Even crystals in rocks are evidence of a natural law that was designed. When we see a series of bombs going off in London, we see the order and look for designers. Why did we do that? Why isn't it more logical to persist in looking for randomness to explain the bombs?
The recognition of order in apparent chaos is not evidence of an intelligent designer, but evidence of an intelligent observer. It is we who look at a pattern and discriminate, specify what pattern constitutes order from what is chaos. Nature does not discriminate; to her all is unthinking chaos, just as to god all is order.

Grave_n_idle

21-10-2005, 21:23

I'm waiting for you to get into the rather unsupported statements by some in this thread that if you say anything other than man jumped out of the ground whole you are negating God. I know how you love explaining about the creation accounts in the Bible. I could do it, but you're so much better at it.

Maybe I've missed such comments? Maybe I haven't found any that I thought had a strong enough claim to be worth responding to?

I don't know, but thatnks for the compliment. :)

If there is a particular post you'd like me to savage, post me a link, and I'll hit it when I get a minute. :)

Grave_n_idle

21-10-2005, 21:29

The problem is that L and R are exclusive. A creature made of L would get no nourishment from R based food. It is rather like the matter-antimatter split following the Big Bang - matter dominated by a small margin and won out.

http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/biology.html

Quote: Even if several living molecules came into existence independently at the beginning, it Is very likely that the most efficient one would have outbred the others, so that all life today may very well be descended from a single original molecule.

Good post.

Dempublicents1

21-10-2005, 21:46

Just a nit-pick: no, science does not accept the possibility of the supernatural. Scientists might, but science cannot. In "not dealing" with the supernatural, it offers no opinion --neither acceptance nor rejection --of the supernatural.

Offering no opinion means that both options are accepted as possibilities. If I say, "I will make no distinction as to whether or not Willamena is male or female," I have accepted the possibility that you are either male or female, but have made no opinion either way.

Science does much the same with the supernatural. It neither denies it nor accepts it - thus open to both possibilities - that it exists or does not exist.

Dempublicents1

21-10-2005, 22:12

It was not I that 'limited' God to the creation account. That would be the writers of the Bible.

Actually, if you want to go back to the writers of the original documents, they list two completely separate creation stories. Which of them have you arbitrarily chosen as correct?

And since this account was written a long time before the discovery of the scientific method, those who change their understanding of the account to fit in with modern philosophies are the ones who have to provide satisfactory reasons for making those changes.

You mean like ceasing to believe that everything in the universe revolves around the Earth and that all the heavenly bodies are perfect - without craters, and that crickets have four legs and that rabbits chew the cud?

The writers of the Bible were hardly infallible. They wrote (or passed down by oral tradition) for those within their time period, with the understanding that they had.

Everyone who believes in modern evolutionary theory is accepting a world view that is not based on empirical evidence, but is used to interpret empirical evidence.

I suppose you might be able to say that. The scientific method is not, itself, empirical evidence. I do hold the worldview that it is a good way to study nature, however.

If you persist in claiming that and example of the creation of a novel gene has been discovered, I insist that you give me a link to where it has been reported.

That may be a bit difficult, as every time we discuss one, you say, "THAT ISN'T NOVEL! IT MAY BE A COMPLETELY NEW GENE, BUT IF IT IS A COPY OF AN OLD ONE, IT ISN'T NOVEL, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES IT IS CHANGED."

This is like saying, "I took a remote control car. I copied the remote control. Then I altered it so that it was instead a walkie talkie. Of course, this wasn't a new use at all. It was still the same old remote control."

Probability is always important. Sure, knowing probability depends on your knowledge of the process. But if a process is known, one should be very careful to calculate the probability of an explanation. To consider it irrelevent is sloppy and does not make for a persuasive argument.

Do you claim to know all natural processes that might factor into the probability of a given genotype?

Nowhere does my idea of probability calculations rely on humans having to be the only possible outcome of evolution.

Yes, as we have shown time and time again, they do. You admit that you don't have a proper understanding of probability - so when you are shown why you are wrong, why do you still insist that you are correct? It would be like me saying, "Nationstates is a TV show, but I don't really know all about it. What's that you say? It is an online forum? NO IT ISN'T, IT IS A TV SHOW. But I don't really know much about it."

Quite wrong. Evolutionary theory 'knows' that eukaryotes developed from prokaryotes.

Interesting tidbit, since you like to bring this one up so often:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/14/new.organism.reut/index.html

However, it is something that cannot be falsified. It is only the predictions that are based on this assumption that may be falsified.

Hmmmmm, someone needs a class in logic. As long as the predictions follow from the theory, if the predictions are falsified, the theory is as well.

However, as we have seen time and again, a false prediction simply means a reordering of the theory, not a questioning of the validity of the theory.

If you have to reorder a theory - you have questioned its validity, found it lacking, and altered it to mesh with the data at hand.

The definitions within Wikipedia may be incorrect. They do, however, appear to be a consensus.

What makes you say that? Wikipedia is open-source. *Anybody* can post to it.

It does say that God created Adam from the dust, and Eve from his rib.

Ah, so you accept the Yahwist account of creation. Tell me, why do you throw out the Priestly version? Or do you simply illogically think that they can coexist, although they were written in vastly different tones, implying vastly different things, and with the creation of different parts of the world and different organisms in very different orders?

It may be read as taking many years of evolution, but there is no indication of this in the description given to/written by Moses.

You obviously take it on faith that these things were written by Moses. Most theological scholars would disagree with you, as the empirical evidence (early writings and the earliest copies of the Scripture), point to at least two separate authors, generally referred to as the Priestly and the Yahwist.

One could argue that all of the observations you referred to are ordered BECAUSE of design.

One could argue that, but only if one presupposes the existence of a designer.

When we see a series of bombs going off in London, we see the order and look for designers. Why did we do that? Why isn't it more logical to persist in looking for randomness to explain the bombs?

There are *natural* causes of bombs - human beings. We already know, with as much certainty as we can possibly get, that human beings exist and can build bombs. We have empirical evidence of this.

Show me the empirical evidence that tells human beings with even close to absolute certainty that God exists.

At any rate, perhaps this may be a way of 'creating' a new gene. (I'll accept it when I have read it for myself--not that I think you are dishonest, but one cannot be too careful.) But in this case, the duplication and mutation of the gene was preserved, because it gave the organism an advantage. Furthermore all of the necessary 'equipment' for transcription and translation was already present, making the event quite a lot more probable than a scenario without it. However, taking this example to explain all of macroevolution does not account for the development of new information. Strictly speaking, there is a new gene, but the information for that gene was already there, thus it is not the creation of new information.

YOU ARE COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL!

Suppose I have the following sentence:

The brown dog went to the park.

Then, I duplicate brown as shown:

The brown brown dog went to the park.

Then I begin changing the addition:

The brown grown dog went to the park.
The brown grewn dog went to the park.
The brown grean dog went to the park.
The brown great dog went to the park.

Are you honestly going to say that I didn't add a new word?

Jocabia

21-10-2005, 22:25

YOU ARE COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL!

Suppose I have the following sentence:

The brown dog went to the park.

Then, I duplicate brown as shown:

The brown brown dog went to the park.

Then I begin changing the addition:

The brown grown dog went to the park.
The brown grewn dog went to the park.
The brown grean dog went to the park.
The brown great dog went to the park.

Are you honestly going to say that I didn't add a new word?

No, you didn't. You're being ridiculous. All the letters were already right there in the sentence. Anyone can see that. Geez, do I have to teach you EVERYTHING?!? hehe

Jocabia

21-10-2005, 22:33

I am absolutely in love with this thread. I think I've never seen such an odd collection of people agreeing and arguing for the same side. I've certainly never seen GnI, Dempublicents1, Willamena and I all in basic agreement all at the same time. I think that calls for a beer. Cheers!

Jocabia

21-10-2005, 22:34

Maybe I've missed such comments? Maybe I haven't found any that I thought had a strong enough claim to be worth responding to?

I don't know, but thatnks for the compliment. :)

If there is a particular post you'd like me to savage, post me a link, and I'll hit it when I get a minute. :)

Mostly it's the post that Dem replied to. Bar keeps making the claim that his version of creation is the only one that can be found in the Bible. Anything else is simply people trying to see what isn't there. Amusing, no?

Jocabia

22-10-2005, 03:14

Grave_n_idle

22-10-2005, 03:22

Mostly it's the post that Dem replied to. Bar keeps making the claim that his version of creation is the only one that can be found in the Bible. Anything else is simply people trying to see what isn't there. Amusing, no?

Perhaps... as Dempublicents points out - there are (at least) two different creation stories, just within Genesis. In fact - it can be argued there are three - but the third is a very fleeting account indeed, of the Genesis 1:1 variety.

The interesting thing about the Creation myth in the Bible, is that it is as deep as you can dive... the deeper you look the more you see... especially if you are at all conversant with Hebrew. My favourite example being the marriage of Adam and Eve - or 'adam and Chavvah, if you prefer... literally, 'flesh' and 'spirit'... or the 'clay' and 'the breath' - whichever way you want to look at it. :)

Anyone who claims that there is ONE clear method in the Genesis account, is missing half of the text - and is certainly closer to the teaching of Paul, than that of Jesus, I would argue. After all, it was Jesus that encouraged us to have our OWN interactions, and ignore the protestations of 'learned men of religion'. The Bible Jesus teaches is a Bible of Discernment, and PERSONAL relation to God. To read the text as only having ONE possible interpretation is SURELY, to revisit the sins of the Pharisees?

Grave_n_idle

22-10-2005, 03:25

By the way, the thing that kills me about most of the probability arguments is they either assume that man is the only outcome or man is the best the possible outcome. Could we possibily be more arogant? Personally I think the best argument for God is that there were billions of viable outcomes and that we were the result. Of course, evolution is also in line with that so it's certainly not proof of a creator. Any other argument against evolution relies on us foregoing the humility we were endowed with.

I think there is a certain frame of mind that sees the Earth as the centre of the universe, and man as the pinnacle of all creation.

Either of which myth, I would have thought, is easily dismantled by looking at the evidence. :)

(Optic nerve, anyone?)

Grave_n_idle

22-10-2005, 03:26

Zagat

22-10-2005, 04:26

Agreed. However, we need to be able to distinguish between 'unlikely' and 'almost impossible'.
Whether that is true or not is neither here nor there. The fact is if there is some possibility of something, that something cannot be eliminated as a possibility.

Exact accordance was never something I said. Simply that the humans that operate the courts of law are a lot like the humans that construct explanations in science. They both use their sense of judgement to determine the likely and unlikely, the believable and the unbelievable. We even put people away for life, in some cases, when the probability is low enough, whatever 'low enough' means.
The courts operate in a manner wholly unlike science. An axiom of the operation of courts is that it is possible to prove a premise in the affirmative, such an axiom is contrary to the axiom in science that it is not possible to prove something in the affirmative. A verdict of guilt can be defined as 'Person X has been proved to have committed crime Y', a theory in science can be defined as 'there is substantial evidence that supports the idea X-Y-Z and this idea has acceptance as a likely truth until some evidence or other suggests either the idea be adjusted or abandoned'.
Courts do not and in fact are not premised on the notion that they exist to find the truth, they are premised on the notion that they exist to find the law. Since the law is wholly invented by human beings and can be made to exist, made to cease to exist or changed simply by human assertions, inquiries made by courts are not analogous to scientific inquiries.

That would be a limitation of a system of law, rather than an imperfection. In a court of law, people realize that some things can never be proven, only supported to a high level of credibility.
Untrue, in a court a guilty verdict is 'the truth' so far as courts are concerned, for so long as that verdict is maintained by the courts.
The reason I call law imperfect in relation to reality is because reality takes a second place to legality within the system of law.

Guess does not equal estimation. They weren't guessing when they put people on the moon. But we are splitting hairs, perhaps.
It's true that not every guess is an estimation, but every estimation is a guess.

I have already agreed with this.
Sound evidence? How about the observation that we have never seen an example of the creation of a novel gene?
Unless one engages in fallacies that's not evidence. Lack of evidence (having seen thing X) is not evidence of lack (of the existence of thing X).

I'm not talking about alleles. That is simply a variation between two copies of the same gene or gene group. What we need to see to support macroevolution is the creation of a novel gene, the generation of new information.
If an allele codes for something never before coded for, then what is not novel about it? I would call that new information within the constraints of a coding system that is in itself universal and somewhat restricted.

This has yet to be demonstrated, observed, or even supported, and yet the whole theory of evolution rests on the possibility of this happening, and that it had to occur to produce every species alive today.
The existence of alleles does support the idea. If things can change to that extent in the absence of reason to believe otherwise there is support for the idea of more extensive changes.

An allele is not a gene. Do not get them confused. An allele is a variation in information. A gene is a unit of information. A gene would be equivalent to a sentence in English, while an allele would be like capitalization of the first letter of the nouns.
Small changes to a sentence can entirely change the meaning of a sentence rendering it a novel sentence to the one it is derived from. Evidently gene is a notoriously imprecise terminology. It has more than one accepted referrent.

But what we have from the Bible is an account of creation. This has the potential to be falsified.
Not so far as science is concerned. God is not subject to natural laws (being supernatural) and so cannot be falsified or disproven by a tool that is limited to observing and interpreting processes subject to natural laws.

Well, right there is the problem. I don't think it should make such an exclusion, particularly when I don't agree with the particular interpretation of the data.
What problem? I state that science doesnt make such an exclusion and your problem is that shouldnt make the exclusion...why is the not making of an exclusion you think should not be made a problem?

I think the limitations on science means that an unbiased person would allow that evolution or creation (whether than be the Christian version or another) are both theories that should be considered. If science is limited, why is it that people have ruled out the creation stories?
Consider whatever you will. There is no reason why you ought not, but there is reason why science cannot. Why particular people choose to discount particular ideas is really not something that I can give you a universal answer to.

In fact, the terrorists are the designers. In my example, I was showing how we can detect design through scientific investigation, while not having anything to do with the supernatural.
The reason we can detect the actors through scientific investigation is because they are not supernatural.

This is the position of ID, so far as I can see it. They do not try to measure the designer, as many suppose. They are claiming to detect design.
They cannot detect a supernatural designer through the use of science. That's why ID is not a scientific endeavour. Science is utterly incapable of detecting things that are not subject to natural laws.

The IDers believe that they can analyse the information systems found in living organisms to the point that law and randomness must be eliminated.
Which makes their investigations and analyses outside of science. Science is dependent on natural laws, anything that supercedes or falls outside natural laws is beyond the ability of science to investigate.

It is like a safety net. It means that, while we might have false negatives (e.g. we might call something that is designed undesigned), we will never get false positives (e.g. to call something that is undesigned designed).
You cannot eliminate (ie prove impossible) something that is possible. Your safety net is utterly unsafe.

Have we not discussed already how the theory of evolution rules out the possibility of the supernatural creating humans as humans?
You have stated that it does, you have not demonstrated (so far as I am concerned) that it is necessarily so. I dont believe that it is so.

On the contrary, I am not confused. I have maintained all along that the scientific method cannot address the supernatural.
Aha, but you keep stating that science ought to include that which it is incapable of including. I can only interpret such a self contrary position as being confused. You may not be confused but your position is self contrary and therefore (according to my interpretation) a position that is aptly described as confused.

I have been arguing against the idea that the scientific method somehow does tell us that macroevolution has occurred.
The scientific method doesnt tell us anything. We apply the method and interpret what we percieve as a result of that application. The method itself has no agentive aspect and makes no statements, like a wrench, a broom or a dishwasher it functions in accordance with it's inherent traits it's operation (by humans). In itself it does not 'tell' or do anything.

It is this idea, this philosophy that deals with the supernatural.
Such an idea or philosophy is not science.

Science consists of both philosophy and the scientific method. Depending on your favourite philosophical position or world view, you will interpret the information uncovered by the scientific method according to that view point.
Interpretations of findings made in conjunction with the application of science are not the science itself. Such interpretations form the frame in which science is applied and used to investigate. Clearly the subjective notions of oberservers and interpreters will have some effect on the result of scientific investigation, that's why it is a good idea to attempt to isolate and make visible the subjective aspects of applying science. To suggest that instead of attempting to minimise the impact of such subjectiveness we ought to give into it entirely appears to be the essence of your argument. ID is simply inserting yet more subjective notions into the interpetation of investigative findings that are conducted in such a way that things like ID are invisible to them.

When you say 'science', what you mean is the scientific method. As I pointed out before, science consists of both philosophy and the scientific method. An important distinction.
The interpetations of what is observed when the method is applied make up the framework for further investigation. That is part of the method. Equally part of the method is that such framework can be reworked according to further observation.

So, if everybody realised that, then perhaps nobody would be so sure about humans evolving from bacteria.
Maybe. It's not necessarily that everybody is so sure.

The scientific method has certainly not been able to demonstrate or observe this. It is currently a philosophical assumption that is often mistaken for scientific fact.
That people fail to understand the limitations of science is not a good rationale for trying to include in science things that those limitations exclude.

What I believe is the logical conclusion to what I have been saying is that everyone should see a distinction between the philosophical positions that occur within the science community.
Then why try to include ID in science? ID is a philosophical position, one that science simply cannot address. It seems to me that trying to include it would make it more difficult not less difficult to see the distinction.

I object to people claiming that science does not deal with the supernatural, and then saying that science shows that we have evolved from monkeys. This is the contradiction.
Science doesnt say anything at all. The fact that some people misunderstand science and misunderstand the theory of evolution is not good reason to try to include ID in science.

NationStates Jolt Archive

So if Creationism/ID is allowed in High School, guess the next step? - Page 5