NationStates Jolt Archive

Fossil animals found in Arctic Canada provide a snapshot of fish evolving into land animals, scientists say.

The finds are giving researchers a fascinating insight into this key stage in the evolution of life on Earth.

US palaeontologists have published details of the fossil "missing links" in the prestigious journal Nature.

The 383 million-year-old specimens are described as crocodile-like animals with fins instead of limbs that probably lived in shallow water.

Before these finds, palaeontologists knew that lobe-finned fishes evolved into land-living creatures during the Devonian Period.

But fossil records showed a gap between Panderichthys, a fish that lived about 385 million years ago which shows early signs of evolving land-friendly features, and Acanthostega, the earliest known tetrapod (four-limbed land-living animals) dating from about 365 million years ago.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41525000/gif/_41525972_fish_transition_416.gif

(more on link)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm

I find this fascinating. Don't you?

Yes, that is awesome.

I find this fascinating. Don't you?

No, not really.

I find this fascinating. Don't you?
So did this poster (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476279)

And this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476303)
And I do as well, but... sorry:p

Yay! Darwin = 24 now. Religion 5.
Hopefully we know all the stages now.

Fossil animals found in Arctic Canada provide a snapshot of fish evolving into land animals, scientists say.

The finds are giving researchers a fascinating insight into this key stage in the evolution of life on Earth.

US palaeontologists have published details of the fossil "missing links" in the prestigious journal Nature.

The 383 million-year-old specimens are described as crocodile-like animals with fins instead of limbs that probably lived in shallow water.

Before these finds, palaeontologists knew that lobe-finned fishes evolved into land-living creatures during the Devonian Period.

But fossil records showed a gap between Panderichthys, a fish that lived about 385 million years ago which shows early signs of evolving land-friendly features, and Acanthostega, the earliest known tetrapod (four-limbed land-living animals) dating from about 365 million years ago.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41525000/gif/_41525972_fish_transition_416.gif

(more on link)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm

I find this fascinating. Don't you?
Absolutely fascinating. I think JesusSaves had a depressing thought to the likely invariable response to the news ... :(

wow its like a fish that can walk. wouldnt it be cool if sharks were like that. Nice work, darwin.

This excites me. I have to remember not to brag about it to certain friends, who, though not particulary fervant in any beliefs, seem to love finding oppertunities when they can complain that I'm "pushing [my] beliefs on people."

quick question: How are they dating the Fossil

quick question: How are they dating the Fossil

That's just a rumour. It was one time, they went out for drinks...

'Dating the Fossil', indeed... you rumour-monger...

That's just a rumour. It was one time, they went out for drinks...

'Dating the Fossil', indeed... you rumour-monger...
Ya know, I used to work in a cannery, and many, MANY people made public announcements regarding their sexual proclivities, and of course, the environment being what it was ... *shudder* :eek:
Things quickly became competitions. Fish would be called "tent-crawlers", having dates with their "nightcrawlers"
Oh, the humanity!

quick question: How are they dating the Fossil


well they cut it open and count how many rings it has got. simple really.

Ya know, I used to work in a cannery, and many, MANY people made public announcements regarding their sexual proclivities, and of course, the environment being what it was ... *shudder* :eek:
Things quickly became competitions. Fish would be called "tent-crawlers", having dates with their "nightcrawlers"
Oh, the humanity!

I had a friend who worked in the food preperation industry (packing baked-goods, making meat pies, all the usual sorts of stuff)... you'd be horrified what goes on.... well, you might know already...

wow its like a fish that can walk. wouldnt it be cool if sharks were like that. Nice work, darwin.
What would be really cool is a shark tied to an elephant's back. It would be big and would eat your ass.

quick question: How are they dating the Fossil
very easy to do. All you have to do is look at the sediment band it was found in.

very easy to do. All you have to do is look at the sediment band it was found in.
That's a first step for an initial dating. Rock magnetism and radioactive dating from the surrounding area are also used to give a more accurate range.

What would be really cool is a shark tied to an elephant's back. It would be big and would eat your ass.

It would swiftly rot and, moreover, chafe. That being said, the concept of an irate pachyderm bearing a flyblown, denticle-skinned fish corpse is oddly appealing.

As I said in the other thread, that fish is a rip-off of the snakehead.

As I said in the other thread, that fish is a rip-off of the snakehead.

Does that mean anything?

Does that mean anything?

The snakehead is a fish that can actually walk on land for a short ditance and can breathe air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakehead_%28fish%29

The snakehead is a fish that can actually walk on land for a short ditance and can breathe air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakehead_%28fish%29

Incorrect - no Channid is capable of "walking" even in rough approximation of the standard sense of the word. Furthermore, amongst freshwater fish, air-breathing by one means or another is not unique to the snakeheads.

Incorrect - no Channid is capable of "walking" even in rough approximation of the standard sense of the word. Furthermore, amongst freshwater fish, air-breathing by one means or another is not unique to the snakeheads.

But the snakehead scared more Republicans than this fossil ever will.

I had a friend who worked in the food preperation industry (packing baked-goods, making meat pies, all the usual sorts of stuff)... you'd be horrified what goes on.... well, you might know already...
Oh, i know enough to keep me from finding fish delectable in general. At least i didn't work in the sausage factory :eek:
That's why ya gotta stick with Twinkies!!! :D

Fossil animals found in Arctic Canada provide a snapshot of fish evolving into land animals, scientists say.

The finds are giving researchers a fascinating insight into this key stage in the evolution of life on Earth.

US palaeontologists have published details of the fossil "missing links" in the prestigious journal Nature.

The 383 million-year-old specimens are described as crocodile-like animals with fins instead of limbs that probably lived in shallow water.

Before these finds, palaeontologists knew that lobe-finned fishes evolved into land-living creatures during the Devonian Period.

But fossil records showed a gap between Panderichthys, a fish that lived about 385 million years ago which shows early signs of evolving land-friendly features, and Acanthostega, the earliest known tetrapod (four-limbed land-living animals) dating from about 365 million years ago.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41525000/gif/_41525972_fish_transition_416.gif

(more on link)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm

I find this fascinating. Don't you?

Yes, fascination. But what they have found is another species. What they have assumed is that it is a missing link. There is no way of establishing ancestry. They are getting excited about guesses and assumptions, as far as I can see. And it in no wise challenges creation or ID.

They are getting excited about guesses and assumptions, as far as I can see. Houston, we have a _______. *tsk*
And it in no wise challenges creation or ID. Good thing that ID doesn't get anywhere near a legit argument in the scientific sense and therefore doesn't really belong here. Also a good thing that creationism has similar problems, yet is even more a matter of not having fossils to work with (seen god's skeleton around lately :rolleyes: )

wow its like a fish that can walk. wouldnt it be cool if sharks were like that. Nice work, darwin.

I can't believe no one has done this yet...

LAND SHARK!

Houston, we have a _______. *tsk*

From what I could see from the article, I meant. Feel free to demonstrate my blindness though.




Good thing that ID doesn't get anywhere near a legit argument in the scientific sense and therefore doesn't really belong here.

But from several previous posts, it would seem that some people thought this finding a problem for ID. I was making the point that it did not, regardless of whether you happen to think that ID was science or not.


Also a good thing that creationism has similar problems, yet is even more a matter of not having fossils to work with (seen god's skeleton around lately :rolleyes: )

Creationism doesn't rely on finding certain fossils to support it's theories. On the other hand, much of the evolutionary story tends to rely on finding those pesky 'missing links', so no wonder there is so much excitement when one looks even vaguely like fitting the bill. Of course, I don't mean to belittle the excitement at finding a new species, but the part about it being another missing link.....(yawns)....heard all that before.

quick question: How are they dating the Fossil

Since the recorded estimate is about 383 million years, I'd go for the normal (for that range) Potassium/Argon method of dating the rock surrounding the fossilized remains. Which can be used to date as far back as about 2 billion years.

Wow! This is awesome, because evolution definately needed even more proof and the people who haven't accepted any of the proof so far will suddenly change their minds now.

So did this poster (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476279)

And this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476303)
And I do as well, but... sorry:p
Sorry. ;)

I did check the first page before posting.

But hey, if I hadn't posted we wouldn't have had to wonder how they know all this information about dating fossils.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/04/embrace_your_inner_fish.jpg (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/)

<Embrace your inner fish>
Wait, is this more of that fossil dating stuff people were talking about earlier?

The snakehead is a fish that can actually walk on land for a short ditance and can breathe air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakehead_%28fish%29

Oh... no, no... I KNOW what snakeheads ARE... I'm just wondering how this massive prehistoric creature is managing to 'rip them off'?

But from several previous posts, it would seem that some people thought this finding a problem for ID. I was making the point that it did not, regardless of whether you happen to think that ID was science or not.


Delusions of grandeur, I'm afraid.

Evolutionary theory doesn't need to find 'problems for ID', because ID just is not a scientific theory.

Finding 'problems for ID' is like 'finding problems in JUMPING to Mars'... it's a scientific irrelevence, and a nonsense.


Creationism doesn't rely on finding certain fossils to support it's theories. On the other hand, much of the evolutionary story tends to rely on finding those pesky 'missing links', so no wonder there is so much excitement when one looks even vaguely like fitting the bill. Of course, I don't mean to belittle the excitement at finding a new species, but the part about it being another missing link.....(yawns)....heard all that before.

Creationism doesn't rely on ANYTHING to 'support it's theories'... because it doesn't HAVE any 'theories'.

A 'theory' relies on observation first, Creationism relies on the 'rule' first, and has yet to prove any valid 'observation'.

On the other hand, Creationism relies on Evolution being somehow proved to be 'untrue', in order that it's assertions of an alternative can be taken as the 'only remaining' contendor. (Which is also a nonsense, of course, because there are THOUSANDS of Creation stories).

So - Creationists make a big deal about there being no transitional fossils (which just means that they have never read around the subject), and EVERY time a transitional fossil is found, they bitch and whine about a transitional fossil between THAT fossil and another fossil...

From what I could see from the article, I meant. Feel free to demonstrate my blindness though.





But from several previous posts, it would seem that some people thought this finding a problem for ID. I was making the point that it did not, regardless of whether you happen to think that ID was science or not.



Creationism doesn't rely on finding certain fossils to support it's theories. On the other hand, much of the evolutionary story tends to rely on finding those pesky 'missing links', so no wonder there is so much excitement when one looks even vaguely like fitting the bill. Of course, I don't mean to belittle the excitement at finding a new species, but the part about it being another missing link.....(yawns)....heard all that before.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You're refutations of evolution do not refute evolution they simply make it clear that your understanding of evolution is third grade at best. What you wrote in this post is proof that you are trying to debunk a process that you know nothing about.

What they have assumed is that it is a missing link.

no they haven't. firstly, 'cause it's "found". but mainly because the idea of "missing links" has no place in darwinian evolution, but is a holdover from earlier ideas such as the great chain of being.

Yes, fascination. But what they have found is another species. What they have assumed is that it is a missing link. There is no way of establishing ancestry. They are getting excited about guesses and assumptions, as far as I can see. And it in no wise challenges creation or ID.
The conclusion that it is a missing link supports their theory of descent. It is a conclusion, not an assumption; conclusions come at the end, assumptions at the beginning or during. It may become an assumption when it leads to another conclusion.

If you have a better theory to explain this fish's place between two others, let's hear it.

How do you know there no way to establish ancestry? Do you know that, or are you just incredulous and scoffing?

Somehow this sounds fishy to me.

no they haven't. firstly, 'cause it's "found". but mainly because the idea of "missing links" has no place in darwinian evolution, but is a holdover from earlier ideas such as the great chain of being.
Exactly. The only way to fill all the missing links is to find the fossils of everything that ever lived. People who talk about missing links think evolution is a theory that states that one day, by accident of mutation, an ape gave birth to a human. Evolution takes it's steps imperceptibly from one generation to the next. It doesn't jump from one species to a whole new one in a single birth. Very small changes from one generation to teh next add up to huge differences of dozens, hundreds and thousands of generations.

Somehow this sounds fishy to me.
*rimshot*

Exactly. The only way to fill all the missing links is to find the fossils of everything that ever lived. People who talk about missing links think evolution is a theory that states that one day, by accident of mutation, an ape gave birth to a human. Evolution takes it's steps imperceptibly from one generation to the next. It doesn't jump from one species to a whole new one in a single birth. Very small changes from one generation to teh next add up to huge differences of dozens, hundreds and thousands of generations.

Indeed - even the articles posted about this new 'link' entity, describe how it still had certain features of very piscine nature (dental structure, etc), and had the water-dweller-typical eye positioning, rather than more conventional 'amphibious' eye-location.

This clearly is... well, transitional... not a creature fully of one sphere OR the other... and not even a 'happy medium'.

In fact... it's just EXACTLY the kind of thing one MIGHT hope for, if one were looking for transitions.

In fact... it's just EXACTLY the kind of thing one MIGHT hope for, if one were looking for transitions.

hey, just because it looks exactly like what one would expect to find if evolution were true (just like all the other so-called transitional fossils they've found), that's no reason to dismiss my deeply felt but obviously false beliefs.

maybe the intelligent designer just specially created a whole pile of lifeforms that just coincidentally happen to look exactly like transitional forms, and gave every specially created species an easily discoverable mechanism of inheriting changes, and created various forms in exactly the right order to just happen to make it appear as though they evolved from common ancestors. see, there's no reason to jump to conclusions like evolution. it's all just a big string of wacky coincidences. and goddidit.

hey, just because it looks exactly like what one would expect to find if evolution were true (just like all the other so-called transitional fossils they've found), that's no reason to dismiss my deeply felt but obviously false beliefs.

maybe the intelligent designer just specially created a whole pile of lifeforms that just coincidentally happen to look exactly like transitional forms, and gave every specially created species an easily discoverable mechanism of inheriting changes, and created various forms in exactly the right order to just happen to make it appear as though they evolved from common ancestors. see, there's no reason to jump to conclusions like evolution. it's all just a big string of wacky coincidences. and goddidit.

I thought the Holly Bibble made apecial point of the fact that that 'god' fellow can't lie...?

Isn't deliberately falsifying the evidence, just a little bit of a bending of that rule?

Isn't deliberately falsifying the evidence, just a little bit of a bending of that rule?

hey, it isn't god's fault that he made everything so that the human brain cannot look at the evidence honestly without coming to the conclusion that life evolves. nevermind that he made both the evidence and the brains in question.

hey, it isn't god's fault that he made everything so that the human brain cannot look at the evidence honestly without coming to the conclusion that life evolves. nevermind that he made both the evidence and the brains in question.
Nevermind that we can see species evolve and change today both in the lab and in nature.

Nevermind that we can see species evolve and change today both in the lab and in nature.

see, now you're getting the hang of it

see, now you're getting the hang of it
Arguing with the religious is a hobby of mine. I recognize the futility in it, but I enjoy it nonetheless.

Evolutionary theory doesn't need to find 'problems for ID', because ID just is not a scientific theory.

Finding 'problems for ID' is like 'finding problems in JUMPING to Mars'... it's a scientific irrelevence, and a nonsense.

Perhaps you could do better than make unsupported blanket statements, Grave, like giving a decent reason or two. Otherwise you can sound a little.....weak.



Creationism doesn't rely on ANYTHING to 'support it's theories'... because it doesn't HAVE any 'theories'.

More of your nonesense. Go to google and type in 'creationism' and then look for sites that seem to have a theory or two.


A 'theory' relies on observation first, Creationism relies on the 'rule' first, and has yet to prove any valid 'observation'.

Within creationism is an attempt to explain the world. If there was no world to observe, there would be no creationism. Thus you are quite wrong. The observation always comes first, and the explanation follows. Of course creationism does have some unverifiable 'rules', but so does all of science in general. Particularly in the evolutionary accounts (which does not rule out creation necessarily), there are plenty of 'rules' that are not verified.


On the other hand, Creationism relies on Evolution being somehow proved to be 'untrue', in order that it's assertions of an alternative can be taken as the 'only remaining' contendor. (Which is also a nonsense, of course, because there are THOUSANDS of Creation stories).


You are quite wrong, Grave, because many creation stories include evolution, so the idea that Creationism excludes evolution has been shown to be quite false time and again. Thus many forms of creationism do not rely on evolution being untrue. You are perpetuating a falsehood.


So - Creationists make a big deal about there being no transitional fossils (which just means that they have never read around the subject), and EVERY time a transitional fossil is found, they bitch and whine about a transitional fossil between THAT fossil and another fossil...

I agree that one of the arguments that creationists use are the lack of transitional fossils. And I see this as a very serious problem for the evolutionary story. I'm obviously not the only one, judging by the hype over this latest supposed discovery. However, these people cannot conclude that it isn't a transitional fossil, because they are commited to an evolutionary account. For them, there isn't any other possibility, and so as long as they have some fossil that 'looks about right', they feel that they have found the missing link. But if you look closer at their diagram of the missing links, although one can percieve that there is somewhat of a gradual change between the specimens, the gaps are still quite large. The development of a shoulder from a flipper may not seem like much to a non-scientist, but those who are familiar with the details know that a shoulder that doesn't have all the right pieces can be a terrible disadvantage. It would not function well either as a flipper or a shoulder. The story may work well on a blackboard sketch, but it tends to get messy at the details.

In addition, one should expect to find more fossils that show such changes by degrees, because that is how the story goes. The absence of slight variations of fossils (i.e. changes by degrees), and the huge precedence of fossils that do not appear to change at all or very little, would probably not convince an objective observer, if there was one. In Darwins' day, we didn't have that many fossils, so this observation was not so much of a problem. He just assumed that we would turn over the missing links eventually. Since his time, there has been an intense search for the missing links, with a good deal of excitment over finds that might concievebly be such, like this latest one. But the fact remains that the vast majority of fossils seem to indicate very little evolution, but rather species that most stay the same. There are, of course, a few exceptions (or at least so they appear at this stage), but it is becomming more of a concern for those who want to support the evolutionary story. It isn't what Darwin expected at all.

Some people have come up with theories like punctuated equilibrium, to explain how the transitional species were not good survivors, and thus left very few fossils, but there is no evidence for this. Consequently, the evolutionary story is full of explanations, but actual hard evidence remains a problem in many situations.


You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You're refutations of evolution do not refute evolution they simply make it clear that your understanding of evolution is third grade at best. What you wrote in this post is proof that you are trying to debunk a process that you know nothing about.


Nice try, punk. And if you know more about evolution than I do (of course, that may be possible), maybe you ought to demonstrate that.


no they haven't. firstly, 'cause it's "found". but mainly because the idea of "missing links" has no place in darwinian evolution, but is a holdover from earlier ideas such as the great chain of being.

They obviously found something, but whether it really is the 'missing link' that they hope for would firstly need some good evidence, like some good old DNA. Otherwise they are just looking at body shapes and making comparisons and educated guesses. I have no problem with guessing and speculation, of course. Their problem is that they are commited to only one interpretation of the find, that it is a missing link.

I don't know what you mean by missing links not having any place in Darwinian evolution. Care to expand on that point?


The conclusion that it is a missing link supports their theory of descent. It is a conclusion, not an assumption; conclusions come at the end, assumptions at the beginning or during. It may become an assumption when it leads to another conclusion.

Yes, it is a conclusion, but because it is based on several assumptions, part of the conclusion is to assert that the previous assumptions are adequately correct to allow them to go public with their conclusions. So I suppose it is both a conclusion and an assumption.


If you have a better theory to explain this fish's place between two others, let's hear it.

Ah, so you want to draw my own personal views into this. Well, I don't know much more about their findings than what I read in the articles, and that wasn't much. So I cannot say that much. But theoretically, if one did find two similar animals, and wanted to account for the similarities, one needn't assume that there was any relatedness by ancestry between them. For example, we tend to find plenty of examples in nature where homology is more to do with function than ancestry. Basic metabolism genes, like those for sugars, for example, have sometimes more homology between humans and bacteria than the invertebrates. The reason is that when bacteria live inside humans, they tend to rely on the same nutrients. So the function of the bacteria determines the gene sequences, rather than because of their common ancestry with humans.

In fact, when you look right across nature, you can see the same principle. People often assume that humans and chimps have somewhere between 90 and 98% homology in their genomes because of common ancestry. But it needn't be so, because the physical requirements of a chimps body is very close to that of a human. They can eat the same foods, for example. Gene function is more important than gene ancestry.

So when these people have found this new specimen that looks like it is a missing link (based on homologous features), I automatically call for caution. It may be a missing link, but it jolly well may not be either. It could even be a descendent from a 'higher' or more complex organism.


How do you know there no way to establish ancestry? Do you know that, or are you just incredulous and scoffing?

They basically cannot establish ancestry. They can build a good case for it, if they were to have some DNA, or if they were to find some particular features that were found no where else in nature but in it's apparently immediate ancestor, or something like that. But at the very best, they can only hope for an explanation that fits with the story. That is why the creationists don't get that alarmed, because it doesn't really prove anything. It really is just conclusions and speculations. Of course, if they started turning over a new missing link every day, and found as many missing links as other specimens, so that one could no longer tell the difference between the major specimens and the so called missing links, then the evolutionary story would be a lot more convincing. Right now, it only convinces those who succume to repetition, or those who want to believe it.

Nice try, punk. And if you know more about evolution than I do (of course, that may be possible), maybe you ought to demonstrate that.
I do and I did in the post after the one you quoted, punk. :)

Perhaps you could do better than make unsupported blanket statements, Grave, like giving a decent reason or two. Otherwise you can sound a little.....weak.
I'll be brisk here:
Not only can and DOES Grave_n_idle pwn you in the field you're arguing with him about, he can and does in the field that you wish you were more knowledgable about at times like this - your own farcicle religion.
Your doing 2nd grade taunting at this point. You should move on to another topic or walk away. You don't handle humility well and you're already being embarassing.

Perhaps you could do better than make unsupported blanket statements, Grave, like giving a decent reason or two. Otherwise you can sound a little.....weak.

More of your nonesense. Go to google and type in 'creationism' and then look for sites that seem to have a theory or two.


On the contrary, my friend... you are failing to understand what a 'theory' is, in anything but the most 'lay' of circles... which is confusing to me, because you have repeatedly claimed to BE a scientist.

Let me find the first scientific definition of 'theory' I can find, and let's see what it says?

"What distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is that a scientific theory must be refutable in principle; a set of circumstances must potentially exist such that if observed it would logically prove the theory wrong".

Well, Creationism and ID both fall at the first hurdle, because they both assume an unfalsifiable element.

"Experiments are the sole judge of scientific truth".

Again, your 'theories' are not theories, because there are elements that cannot, EVER, be 'tested'.

Theoretically, you can test evolution, by just waiting long enough.

"Scientific method: observations, hypothesis/theory, experiment (test), revision of theory"

Creationism and ID both fail to follow the 'scientific method'... since the START from the assumption of the second step, without ever observing a mechanism... or even the suggestion of an observed mechanism.


Within creationism is an attempt to explain the world. If there was no world to observe, there would be no creationism. Thus you are quite wrong. The observation always comes first, and the explanation follows. Of course creationism does have some unverifiable 'rules', but so does all of science in general. Particularly in the evolutionary accounts (which does not rule out creation necessarily), there are plenty of 'rules' that are not verified.


First - you are comparing 'observing' the system, with observing the mechanism. You see the world... that is NOT observation of a 'mechanism' of Creationism... just where you think it happened.

Second - you confuse 'unverifiable' with 'unfalsifiable'. It is the unfalsifiable devils-in-the-details that hurt Creationism or ID as 'theories'.


You are quite wrong, Grave, because many creation stories include evolution, so the idea that Creationism excludes evolution has been shown to be quite false time and again. Thus many forms of creationism do not rely on evolution being untrue. You are perpetuating a falsehood.


You miss the point. Science HAS a potential mechanism that adequately suggests an avenue for the progression of entities. As long as 'evolution' is not 'proved untrue', 'christian' Creationism and ID are lesser arguments... since they rely on less scientific principles. In order to succeed, christian Creationism DOES require the god-not-included version to be 'proved' wrong.

So, WHO is perpetuating falsehoods? The camp that presents the scientific method, and methodically derived mechanisms, or the camp that provides unfalsifiable assumptions, and a claim that their argument is backed by 'a greater power'.



I agree that one of the arguments that creationists use are the lack of transitional fossils. And I see this as a very serious problem for the evolutionary story. I'm obviously not the only one, judging by the hype over this latest supposed discovery. However, these people cannot conclude that it isn't a transitional fossil, because they are commited to an evolutionary account. For them, there isn't any other possibility, and so as long as they have some fossil that 'looks about right', they feel that they have found the missing link. But if you look closer at their diagram of the missing links, although one can percieve that there is somewhat of a gradual change between the specimens, the gaps are still quite large. The development of a shoulder from a flipper may not seem like much to a non-scientist, but those who are familiar with the details know that a shoulder that doesn't have all the right pieces can be a terrible disadvantage. It would not function well either as a flipper or a shoulder. The story may work well on a blackboard sketch, but it tends to get messy at the details.

In addition, one should expect to find more fossils that show such changes by degrees, because that is how the story goes.


You're joking, right?

Your assertion seems to be that a transition SHOULD be found for every single change... despite the relative rarity of 'fossilised remains', even within well established classifications.

What you are arguing, is approximately equal to me implying that I had no grandparents, because I don't know where they are buried.


The absence of slight variations of fossils (i.e. changes by degrees), and the huge precedence of fossils that do not appear to change at all or very little, would probably not convince an objective observer, if there was one. In Darwins' day, we didn't have that many fossils, so this observation was not so much of a problem. He just assumed that we would turn over the missing links eventually. Since his time, there has been an intense search for the missing links, with a good deal of excitment over finds that might concievebly be such, like this latest one. But the fact remains that the vast majority of fossils seem to indicate very little evolution, but rather species that most stay the same. There are, of course, a few exceptions (or at least so they appear at this stage), but it is becomming more of a concern for those who want to support the evolutionary story. It isn't what Darwin expected at all.

Some people have come up with theories like punctuated equilibrium, to explain how the transitional species were not good survivors, and thus left very few fossils, but there is no evidence for this.


It isn't punctuated equilibrium of transitionality that were the reasons why relatively few fossils are likely to be found... it is the simple fact that fossilisation requires some pretty specific, even extreme, circumstances.

Those conditions are, by their nature, 'rare'... thus ANY fossil evidence of ANY classification of entity, MUST be 'rare'.


Consequently, the evolutionary story is full of explanations, but actual hard evidence remains a problem in many situations.


How can you even have the gall to say this? The biggest marketable 'alternative' to using the scientific method, is an old book.

I think your house may have too much glass in it, to make throwing stones a good defence.

(By the way, the 'scientific source' I used was the first (non-Wiki) site that Yahoo threw on a search for keywords 'scientific definition theory'. The site is: http://www.astronomynotes.com/scimethd/s2.htm.

I just like to credit my sources, and show that I'm not 'finessing' my data.

On the contrary, my friend... you are failing to understand what a 'theory' is, in anything but the most 'lay' of circles... which is confusing to me, because you have repeatedly claimed to BE a scientist.

Let me find the first scientific definition of 'theory' I can find, and let's see what it says?

"What distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is that a scientific theory must be refutable in principle; a set of circumstances must potentially exist such that if observed it would logically prove the theory wrong".

Well, Creationism and ID both fall at the first hurdle, because they both assume an unfalsifiable element.


In that case, science itself also falls at the first hurdle because it assumes that for every effect there is a cause. Another assumption might be that only natural causes are sufficient to account for every effect. Wouldn't you say that these were unfalsifiable elements?


"Experiments are the sole judge of scientific truth".


The 'truth' that natural causes are sufficient to explain how humans came to be on the planet. You are a little inconsistent, Grave.


Again, your 'theories' are not theories, because there are elements that cannot, EVER, be 'tested'.


And again, just like all of science has elements than cannot ever be tested.


Theoretically, you can test evolution, by just waiting long enough.


Yes, theoretically one can wait around long enough to see if one species evolves into another. Is that a sure way to prove that God did not create? Hardly. Does it mean that it proves creation wrong? You are the one that must be joking.


"Scientific method: observations, hypothesis/theory, experiment (test), revision of theory"


I simply have to point to the places in the evolutionary story where much of this is not possible. Does that mean it isn't science?


Creationism and ID both fail to follow the 'scientific method'... since the START from the assumption of the second step, without ever observing a mechanism... or even the suggestion of an observed mechanism.

It isn't very logical to expect that ID or creationism should jump through these hoops while allowing evolutionary stories to be exempt. That is called hypocrisy.


First - you are comparing 'observing' the system, with observing the mechanism. You see the world... that is NOT observation of a 'mechanism' of Creationism... just where you think it happened.

Creationism does not require one to know how God did it, only that if he did it, then an observation of the natural world would be consistent with that. You are trying to resurrect that old strawman of creationists having to know how God did it in order to make creationism a viable explanation. Ridiculous. Evolutionary theory is full of explanations, otherwise knows as 'just so stories' without workable models of the 'how'.


Second - you confuse 'unverifiable' with 'unfalsifiable'. It is the unfalsifiable devils-in-the-details that hurt Creationism or ID as 'theories'.

Perhaps you care to explain the difference between unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Be sure to include an example, just so I don't get even more confused.



You miss the point. Science HAS a potential mechanism that adequately suggests an avenue for the progression of entities. As long as 'evolution' is not 'proved untrue', 'christian' Creationism and ID are lesser arguments... since they rely on less scientific principles. In order to succeed, christian Creationism DOES require the god-not-included version to be 'proved' wrong.

What is this rubbish about less scientific principles, as if having more scientific principles makes anything more true. Based on science, no one is in a position to say whether life was created or evolved.

And, no, creationism does not require proof that God must have created the world, or proof that the god-not-included version be proven wrong. It is a way of explanation, and begins with an assumption, just like a god-less explanation, no more, no less.


So, WHO is perpetuating falsehoods? The camp that presents the scientific method, and methodically derived mechanisms, or the camp that provides unfalsifiable assumptions, and a claim that their argument is backed by 'a greater power'.

You have completely overlooked the unfalsifiable assumptions in the evolutionary theory. Until you address them, you are perpetuating falsehoods, because you are claiming that creationism has assumptions while the evolutionary story does not. And you are trying to paint a picture of creationism that does not include evolution, which is also false.


Your assertion seems to be that a transition SHOULD be found for every single change... despite the relative rarity of 'fossilised remains', even within well established classifications.

What you are arguing, is approximately equal to me implying that I had no grandparents, because I don't know where they are buried.

Nope, that wasn't it at all. My assertion is that because we have hundreds of thousands if not millions of fossils at our disposal, and because many of them have been classified, we should be able to see changes by degrees represented in a PORTION of those fossils. We do not.



It isn't punctuated equilibrium of transitionality that were the reasons why relatively few fossils are likely to be found... it is the simple fact that fossilisation requires some pretty specific, even extreme, circumstances.


True, but today we have millions of fossils. You can even walk around Texas, particularly the limestone areas, and find some more fossils lying on the ground.


Those conditions are, by their nature, 'rare'... thus ANY fossil evidence of ANY classification of entity, MUST be 'rare'.

See, that is where you are perpetuating a falsehood. Fossils are not rare. The only rare fossils are those that look like missing links.



How can you even have the gall to say this? The biggest marketable 'alternative' to using the scientific method, is an old book.

Not an alternative to the scientific method, silly, but an alternative to their favourite way of explaining things. This team even went to the North Pole for the specific purpose of finding missing links. They are hardly objective about their finds, since the more missing links they can find, the more successful they will appear to be. To be fair, much of science is pursued in a similar fashion. We cannot avoid subjectivity. But these people definitely have an agenda here, and there doesn't seem to be much allowance for alternative speculations (such as the creature being a descendent of a more complex ancestor, rather than a missing link).


I think your house may have too much glass in it, to make throwing stones a good defence.

Look to your own glass, Grave.

In that case, science itself also falls at the first hurdle because it assumes that for every effect there is a cause. Another assumption might be that only natural causes are sufficient to account for every effect. Wouldn't you say that these were unfalsifiable elements?


Every action I seem to do, seems to have an effect. Thus, every cause can be assumed to have an effect, and every effect CAN be assumed to have a cause.

This is falsifiable... if, one day, I happen to conduct an experiment where EITHER a 'cause' occurs that has NO effect, or an 'effect' occurs without ANY cause, the assumption is falsified.

Until then, the assumption is not only valid, but scientific... since it relies on the observable fact that effects follow causes to form a 'theory' that cause leads to effect.

As for the other assumption - again, if natural causes are always observed to be the progenitors of every experimental effect, the assumption is scientific, and it can still be falsified, by the first experimental occassion on which a natural cause is NOT the cause of an effect.


The 'truth' that natural causes are sufficient to explain how humans came to be on the planet. You are a little inconsistent, Grave.


'Science' doesn't claim anything as 'truth' about how humans came to be on the planet. Science has theories (some are, anachronistically, called laws.. but they are still 'theories' by definition)... not 'truths'.


And again, just like all of science has elements than cannot ever be tested.


Have not been tested. Might not be tested. May be almost impossible to test. None of those things equate to 'cannot ever be tested'.


Yes, theoretically one can wait around long enough to see if one species evolves into another. Is that a sure way to prove that God did not create? Hardly. Does it mean that it proves creation wrong? You are the one that must be joking.


What are you talking about? You are creating a strawman. The point is, the 'hardest' things to obtain evidence for in the evolutionary theory, are 'hard' because they are long processes. I made no claims about whether or not 'god' could have been involved.


I simply have to point to the places in the evolutionary story where much of this is not possible. Does that mean it isn't science?


Perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is... and provide these areas where observation does not lead to theory, does not lead to the concept of experimental testing and revision?


It isn't very logical to expect that ID or creationism should jump through these hoops while allowing evolutionary stories to be exempt. That is called hypocrisy.


Evolution as a mechanism, starts from the observation of similarities withing 'related' entities... especially in the context of earlier entities. Observation leads to theory.

Christian Creationism starts from the assumption that the Bible is the inerrant word of god, and that the bible account of creation is literal and true. That is not something 'observed'. Thus, the 'theory' is no 'theory'.


Creationism does not require one to know how God did it, only that if he did it, then an observation of the natural world would be consistent with that. You are trying to resurrect that old strawman of creationists having to know how God did it in order to make creationism a viable explanation. Ridiculous. Evolutionary theory is full of explanations, otherwise knows as 'just so stories' without workable models of the 'how'.


You are making your own stramwen. I said nothing about creationists "having to know how God did it in order to make creationism a viable explanation", I merely pointed out that you are leping in at the end... you seem to think you can construct a 'theory' without resorting to observation OR suggesting a mechanism.


Perhaps you care to explain the difference between unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Be sure to include an example, just so I don't get even more confused.


If something is unverifiable, it cannot be verified... that means you cannot check it's accuracy. If smething is unfalsifiable, that means there is NO WAY to 'prove it wrong'... there is no situation under which ANY evidence could EVER question the basic assumption, so long as that assumption is held to be self-confirming.



What is this rubbish about less scientific principles, as if having more scientific principles makes anything more true. Based on science, no one is in a position to say whether life was created or evolved.

And, no, creationism does not require proof that God must have created the world, or proof that the god-not-included version be proven wrong. It is a way of explanation, and begins with an assumption, just like a god-less explanation, no more, no less.


Another strawman. I didn't make any comparison between 'more scientific principles' and 'more true'. Science still doesn't deal in the kind of 'truth' you seem to require....

However, 'more scientific prinicples' DOES equate to 'more scientific'.

Second point - you keep raising this strawman spectre of the 'assumption that there is no god' in evolutionary theory.

This is not true, and you know it.

The evolutionary theory neither claims a god, nor the lack of one.


You have completely overlooked the unfalsifiable assumptions in the evolutionary theory. Until you address them, you are perpetuating falsehoods, because you are claiming that creationism has assumptions while the evolutionary story does not. And you are trying to paint a picture of creationism that does not include evolution, which is also false.


Which are these 'unfalsifiable assumptions' of which you keep speaking?

I'm not trying to paint a picture of creationism that doesn't involve evolution... those who accept the Bible as LITERAL, claim that for themselves.


Nope, that wasn't it at all. My assertion is that because we have hundreds of thousands if not millions of fossils at our disposal, and because many of them have been classified, we should be able to see changes by degrees represented in a PORTION of those fossils. We do not.


We do see degrees... just not the sorts of tiny degrees that you pretend would satisfy.


True, but today we have millions of fossils. You can even walk around Texas, particularly the limestone areas, and find some more fossils lying on the ground.


Yes - and you notice, they are mostly the same fossils? Caught in the same events, at the same time, yes?


See, that is where you are perpetuating a falsehood. Fossils are not rare. The only rare fossils are those that look like missing links.


Not at all - finding 6 million trilobites in the area of one cataclysm, is not the same as finding a balanced spread of situations that laid down fossils, spread over all of history.


Not an alternative to the scientific method, silly, but an alternative to their favourite way of explaining things. This team even went to the North Pole for the specific purpose of finding missing links. They are hardly objective about their finds, since the more missing links they can find, the more successful they will appear to be. To be fair, much of science is pursued in a similar fashion. We cannot avoid subjectivity. But these people definitely have an agenda here, and there doesn't seem to be much allowance for alternative speculations (such as the creature being a descendent of a more complex ancestor, rather than a missing link).


Subjectivity is irrelevent to THIS debate. This is about whether a collection of primitive stories can compete as a valid 'mechanism', in a scientific arena, with the theories based on the observations received.


Look to your own glass, Grave.

Come on... work at it a little... this could have been a riposte about betrayal, or better, something about 'casting the first stone'. Work with me here.

Yes, it is a conclusion, but because it is based on several assumptions, part of the conclusion is to assert that the previous assumptions are adequately correct to allow them to go public with their conclusions. So I suppose it is both a conclusion and an assumption.
Any reasonable stated hypothesis includes a conclusion, but the conclusion is not the assumption. Remember, their conclusion is not "that evolution has taken place". That is no part of their conclusion. Evolution is a fact already assumed. One does not have to conclude the assumption --the assumption is already there, previously tested and confirmed.

The fish doesn't just conveniently fit the theory assumed to be true --it actually fits a prediction made by the theory, that there should be such a creature with such a body structure between two others, found at a strata layer between two others, hopefully that gets fossilized in some catastrophe for us to find millennia later. Finding it does not prove anything, but it adds support to the theory of evolution.

Their conclusion explains how this fish fits into the evolutionary chain; assuming that evolution takes place is rather necessary for that. Their assumption is adequately correct because it is the best explanation they have at the moment. Without a better explanation to take the place of evolution to explain these apparent changes, why should anyone assume differently? Especially when evolution makes sense and is observable in the present-day.

If, on the other hand, you are simply going to suggest that the fish does not fit into any chain of development, that it is an isolated find, well... so what, then? That doesn't explain anything. Science explains things.

If you have a better theory to explain this fish's place between two others, let's hear it.
Ah, so you want to draw my own personal views into this.
Actually, it was rhetorical, but sure, let's hear what you have to say.

Well, I don't know much more about their findings than what I read in the articles, and that wasn't much. So I cannot say that much. But theoretically, if one did find two similar animals, and wanted to account for the similarities, one needn't assume that there was any relatedness by ancestry between them. For example, we tend to find plenty of examples in nature where homology is more to do with function than ancestry. Basic metabolism genes, like those for sugars, for example, have sometimes more homology between humans and bacteria than the invertebrates. The reason is that when bacteria live inside humans, they tend to rely on the same nutrients. So the function of the bacteria determines the gene sequences, rather than because of their common ancestry with humans.

In fact, when you look right across nature, you can see the same principle. People often assume that humans and chimps have somewhere between 90 and 98% homology in their genomes because of common ancestry. But it needn't be so, because the physical requirements of a chimps body is very close to that of a human. They can eat the same foods, for example. Gene function is more important than gene ancestry.

So when these people have found this new specimen that looks like it is a missing link (based on homologous features), I automatically call for caution. It may be a missing link, but it jolly well may not be either. It could even be a descendent from a 'higher' or more complex organism.
So, the idea is that these bacteria have genetic similiarities to humans because they took genes from us as they fed on us? And that we and chimps have the same genetic structures because we fed off the same foods? Doesn't that imply development, and if not through generations then how?

They basically cannot establish ancestry. They can build a good case for it, if they were to have some DNA, or if they were to find some particular features that were found no where else in nature but in it's apparently immediate ancestor, or something like that. But at the very best, they can only hope for an explanation that fits with the story. That is why the creationists don't get that alarmed, because it doesn't really prove anything. It really is just conclusions and speculations. Of course, if they started turning over a new missing link every day, and found as many missing links as other specimens, so that one could no longer tell the difference between the major specimens and the so called missing links, then the evolutionary story would be a lot more convincing. Right now, it only convinces those who succume to repetition, or those who want to believe it.
There you go again, mistakingly implying science must be truth. Science explains things --it presents the best, most truthful explanation; it does not present "truth". They don't have all the pieces of the puzzle, but every piece they do find that contributes positively to the big picture reinforces all the puzzle.

What is this rubbish about less scientific principles, as if having more scientific principles makes anything more true. Based on science, no one is in a position to say whether life was created or evolved.
"...whether life was created or evolved." Life evolves from other life. The mechanism of evolution is not about the origin of life. There is no comparison there. Whether the first life was created by something is irrelevant to evolution.

You have completely overlooked the unfalsifiable assumptions in the evolutionary theory.
Which assumptions would those be? That species can change from generation to generation? That is open to being false, as you indicated to me above. That natural causes can solely account for these changes? How is that not open to being false? Especially if an intelligent design is someday conclusively demonstrated.

Every action I seem to do, seems to have an effect. Thus, every cause can be assumed to have an effect, and every effect CAN be assumed to have a cause.


Yes, you are right. It can be assumed.


This is falsifiable... if, one day, I happen to conduct an experiment where EITHER a 'cause' occurs that has NO effect, or an 'effect' occurs without ANY cause, the assumption is falsified.

Not really. You would simply say that you could not detect the effect.


Until then, the assumption is not only valid, but scientific... since it relies on the observable fact that effects follow causes to form a 'theory' that cause leads to effect.

Yes, a valid assumption. But my point is that it remains an assumption, in contrast to your previous assertion that real science doesn't have gross assumptions (like ID and creationism).


As for the other assumption - again, if natural causes are always observed to be the progenitors of every experimental effect, the assumption is scientific, and it can still be falsified, by the first experimental occassion on which a natural cause is NOT the cause of an effect.

Except the assumption that it is always safe to assume only natural causes cannot be falsified. That's the big one right there.


'Science' doesn't claim anything as 'truth' about how humans came to be on the planet. Science has theories (some are, anachronistically, called laws.. but they are still 'theories' by definition)... not 'truths'.

OK, but I thought we were specifically referring to the evolutionary story, and apparently we are not supposed to think of the evolutionary theory as a theory, much less criticise it.



Have not been tested. Might not be tested. May be almost impossible to test. None of those things equate to 'cannot ever be tested'.


Yeah, good point, but if it cannot be tested now, then it puts the researcher in the same position as a creationist--relying on assumptions that are not tested. That doesn't make it better science.


What are you talking about? You are creating a strawman. The point is, the 'hardest' things to obtain evidence for in the evolutionary theory, are 'hard' because they are long processes. I made no claims about whether or not 'god' could have been involved.

OK, so I got you wrong, because I thought you were trying to contrast creationism and evolution by saying the creationists need to show evolution as false in order to have adequate grounds for their assumptions.


Perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is... and provide these areas where observation does not lead to theory, does not lead to the concept of experimental testing and revision?

It's not like we haven't been all over this ground already on NS. Take something like quorum sensing in bacteria--the language of the microbes. People are quite excited about the lastest findings, because it may provide us with more information about fighting disease, improving crops, etc. I recently heard a lecture about how something like quorum sensing must have evolved. It wasn't as though anybody could do an experiment and presto we know how the little critters got their language. All I heard was speculation about how it must have evolved. And when these bacteria apparently speaking the same language communicate with plants, algae, etc., then more explanations are sought for its 'amazingly clever ' evolution. But can anyone actually demonstrate the validity of the explanations? In most cases, absolutely not. But does that prevent them from writing papers on evolutionary speculation? Not that I have seen.



Evolution as a mechanism, starts from the observation of similarities withing 'related' entities... especially in the context of earlier entities. Observation leads to theory.

I have no problem with speculations based on observation. The problem arises when people became committed to one particular way of explaining the observation. I've actually got no problems with evolution itself. But I do have problems with people who think evolution is the only way humans could have got here, particularly when they think science has somehow proven this.


Christian Creationism starts from the assumption that the Bible is the inerrant word of god, and that the bible account of creation is literal and true. That is not something 'observed'. Thus, the 'theory' is no 'theory'.

Grave, you are still pointing to the assumptions in creationism as though that means it cannot be a theory, and completely overlooking the assumptions within evolutionary theory. The creationism theory is simply a way of explaining the world that is consistent with a creation event. It observes the world through such a framework, and it is a valid way of studying the universe, as history has shown.

What you appear to be doing is defining the word 'theory' in such a way that it excludes anything but your favourite theory.



You are making your own stramwen. I said nothing about creationists "having to know how God did it in order to make creationism a viable explanation", I merely pointed out that you are leping in at the end... you seem to think you can construct a 'theory' without resorting to observation OR suggesting a mechanism.

See, that's what you are asking for, a mechanism, which is the same as having a theory about the act of creation. I'm not making a strawman, since when you ask for a mechanism, you are asking for an explanation for how e.g. life got here. Creationism doesn't need to know a mechanism. The mechanism is simply that God created. Obviously He knows it. But a creationist does not need it in order to study and observe the world. Only someone who is committed to only natural causes is required to have a mechanism to explain how humans got here.



If something is unverifiable, it cannot be verified... that means you cannot check it's accuracy. If smething is unfalsifiable, that means there is NO WAY to 'prove it wrong'... there is no situation under which ANY evidence could EVER question the basic assumption, so long as that assumption is held to be self-confirming.


So the difference between unverifiable and unfalsifiable is that unverifiable means that you cannot check its accuracy, and unfalsifiable means that you cannot check whether it is wrong or right. And you are claiming that evolution is unverifiable and creation is unfalsifiable? Wow. You really do have a funny way of putting things, Grave. It's almost as if you are saying that we can prove that evolution is right, but that we cannot check to see how right it is, while creation is just not checkable. That is a sly way of saying that we can prove evolution is true (and thus creation is probably wrong). The problem is that creation never sets out to prove evolution wrong, but considers that evolution may be a part of the process. Not only that, but we simply cannot prove that evolution is true. Clever, but not clever enough.


Another strawman. I didn't make any comparison between 'more scientific principles' and 'more true'. Science still doesn't deal in the kind of 'truth' you seem to require....


My 'truth' in that sense simply means reliable information about the material world.


However, 'more scientific prinicples' DOES equate to 'more scientific'

Maybe, but then it all depends on what you define as 'more scientific'. I suppose it is possible to have two alternative theories for the source of gravity, with the 'more scientific' one being the wrong one.


Second point - you keep raising this strawman spectre of the 'assumption that there is no god' in evolutionary theory.

Nope, I've never done that. You are the one that is trying to assume that there is no evolution is creation theories. You were the one attacking creationism as it it were completely unscientific.


The evolutionary theory neither claims a god, nor the lack of one.

And if you read my posts very carefully, you will see that I have never said or implied this.



Which are these 'unfalsifiable assumptions' of which you keep speaking?

The idea that we can explain everything in the material world using natural causes--for starters.


I'm not trying to paint a picture of creationism that doesn't involve evolution... those who accept the Bible as LITERAL, claim that for themselves.


But you have posted contrasts between creationism and evolution, as if they were not compatible. Even those who take the Bible literally do not necessarily rule out evolution.


We do see degrees... just not the sorts of tiny degrees that you pretend would satisfy.

We only see minor variations, such as what you would expect to see in a living population.



Yes - and you notice, they are mostly the same fossils? Caught in the same events, at the same time, yes?

That explanation runs a bit thin when you are talking about life right around the globe.



Not at all - finding 6 million trilobites in the area of one cataclysm, is not the same as finding a balanced spread of situations that laid down fossils, spread over all of history.

Then what is this about different fossils being found in different layers of rock, indicating some sort of evolutionary timeline? Doesn't really fit with one cataclysm, does it? Or does it?



Subjectivity is irrelevent to THIS debate. This is about whether a collection of primitive stories can compete as a valid 'mechanism', in a scientific arena, with the theories based on the observations received.

Rubbish. No one is asking modern science to compete with the Bible. That isn't the issue at all. The competition is between two points of view, and the side that tries to be objective as possible will be most likely the most reliable one. I have all along maintained that creationism does not rule out evolution. On the other hand, when people rule out creationism, they are hardly trying to be objective, are they?




Come on... work at it a little... this could have been a riposte about betrayal, or better, something about 'casting the first stone'. Work with me here.


Err....yeah.....well, poetry is not my stong point. I tend not to excel at that dashing style of yours, Grave. Guess I'll just leave it up to you to entertain the gallery.

Not really. You would simply say that you could not detect the effect.
Since he is the one doing the experiment, that is saying the same thing. Experiments are done by humans, for humans, so the effect must be detectable by humans, or for humans by machines, or there is no effect.

I know it's a bit much, but could someone pick out the scientific debate from the last page or so, condense it and leave out anything resembling an insult or snide remark? I want to help argue the evolution perspective (actually having somewhat of an education in this area) but I really can't be arsed wading through all of the truisms, pointless arguments and witticisms.

Yes, you are right. It can be assumed.


Good. Assumption isn't the problem.


Not really. You would simply say that you could not detect the effect.


That is taken as read.... but it IS falsifiable, in that all effects could theoretically be detected.


Yes, a valid assumption. But my point is that it remains an assumption, in contrast to your previous assertion that real science doesn't have gross assumptions (like ID and creationism).


I haven't claimed that... I've claimed that the problem with Creationism and ID is that they require unfalsifiable assumptions.


Except the assumption that it is always safe to assume only natural causes cannot be falsified. That's the big one right there.


I'm not sure that means, what you think it means. One too many negatives, perhaps?


OK, but I thought we were specifically referring to the evolutionary story, and apparently we are not supposed to think of the evolutionary theory as a theory, much less criticise it.


Who says? I've never met anyone with any serious background in science, that would argue evolution was not a theory. Some people are flippant about it, but, if they understand the limitations of 'science', they must admit it is a theory, no matter how convincing and well-supported.


Yeah, good point, but if it cannot be tested now, then it puts the researcher in the same position as a creationist--relying on assumptions that are not tested. That doesn't make it better science.


'Assumptions that aren't tested' are not the problem.


It's not like we haven't been all over this ground already on NS. Take something like quorum sensing in bacteria--the language of the microbes. People are quite excited about the lastest findings, because it may provide us with more information about fighting disease, improving crops, etc. I recently heard a lecture about how something like quorum sensing must have evolved. It wasn't as though anybody could do an experiment and presto we know how the little critters got their language. All I heard was speculation about how it must have evolved. And when these bacteria apparently speaking the same language communicate with plants, algae, etc., then more explanations are sought for its 'amazingly clever ' evolution. But can anyone actually demonstrate the validity of the explanations? In most cases, absolutely not. But does that prevent them from writing papers on evolutionary speculation? Not that I have seen.


Speculation does not have the 'authority' of real 'theory', until it is conformed to the Scientific Method.

As for your tiny bugs, specultaion in such scenarios can be based on parallels, or model cases.


I have no problem with speculations based on observation. The problem arises when people became committed to one particular way of explaining the observation. I've actually got no problems with evolution itself. But I do have problems with people who think evolution is the only way humans could have got here, particularly when they think science has somehow proven this.


Anyone who seriously thinks science empirically proves anything, is misusing the tool.


Grave, you are still pointing to the assumptions in creationism as though that means it cannot be a theory, and completely overlooking the assumptions within evolutionary theory. The creationism theory is simply a way of explaining the world that is consistent with a creation event. It observes the world through such a framework, and it is a valid way of studying the universe, as history has shown.

What you appear to be doing is defining the word 'theory' in such a way that it excludes anything but your favourite theory.


I'm not defining the word 'theory'.

I am using the scientific definition of the word.

If it galls you that your pet 'theory' doesn't work with that toolkit, stop trying to claim it as science. You'll be happy with your mumbojumbo version, I'll be happy with observations and testing... and ne'er the twain shall meet.


See, that's what you are asking for, a mechanism, which is the same as having a theory about the act of creation. I'm not making a strawman, since when you ask for a mechanism, you are asking for an explanation for how e.g. life got here. Creationism doesn't need to know a mechanism. The mechanism is simply that God created. Obviously He knows it. But a creationist does not need it in order to study and observe the world. Only someone who is committed to only natural causes is required to have a mechanism to explain how humans got here.


It's not what I want... you need to have a mechanism, to claim it (scientifically) as a 'theory'.

That's just how it is!


So the difference between unverifiable and unfalsifiable is that unverifiable means that you cannot check its accuracy, and unfalsifiable means that you cannot check whether it is wrong or right. And you are claiming that evolution is unverifiable and creation is unfalsifiable? Wow. You really do have a funny way of putting things, Grave. It's almost as if you are saying that we can prove that evolution is right, but that we cannot check to see how right it is, while creation is just not checkable. That is a sly way of saying that we can prove evolution is true (and thus creation is probably wrong). The problem is that creation never sets out to prove evolution wrong, but considers that evolution may be a part of the process. Not only that, but we simply cannot prove that evolution is true. Clever, but not clever enough.


No - unfalsifiable means it can NEVER be 'proved' WRONG.

And, I'm not saying science can 'prove' evolution right... because that isn't how science 'works'... except in a tabloid/gradeschool misrepresentational way.

I'm not sure why 'unverified' and 'unfalsifiable' give you such problems... didn't you once say you work in a lab? Even BASIC lab understanding requires you to appreciate that measurements must be both 'accurate' AND 'precise'... two terms that seem to be almost interchangable... but that refer to different properties of 'rightness'.


Maybe, but then it all depends on what you define as 'more scientific'. I suppose it is possible to have two alternative theories for the source of gravity, with the 'more scientific' one being the wrong one.


Of course it is... if either method is right. Or wrong.


Nope, I've never done that. You are the one that is trying to assume that there is no evolution is creation theories. You were the one attacking creationism as it it were completely unscientific.


It is unscientific. It fails to follow the scientific method.

It won't wear it's jacket, so it can't get in this club. Since it is so adamant about it's no-jacket stance, one wonders WHY it is SO desperate to get in?


The idea that we can explain everything in the material world using natural causes--for starters.


Which could EASILY be falsified.

Next.


But you have posted contrasts between creationism and evolution, as if they were not compatible. Even those who take the Bible literally do not necessarily rule out evolution.


I beg to differ. My mother-in-law is living testament to the fact that your sweeping generalisation is untrue. She takes the Bible ABSOLUTELY literally, and believes that evolution is the work of satan deceiving mere humans.



That explanation runs a bit thin when you are talking about life right around the globe.


I thought you just talked about one geography?

How does it wear thin? If ammonites are a good design for a few million years, in almost all conditions... we should expect to find them over quite a large area.


Then what is this about different fossils being found in different layers of rock, indicating some sort of evolutionary timeline? Doesn't really fit with one cataclysm, does it? Or does it?


Not one SINGULAR cataclysm, that was the ONLY one, ever, no.

But, we are not talking about one event, ever. We are talking about broad swathes of time.


Rubbish. No one is asking modern science to compete with the Bible. That isn't the issue at all. The competition is between two points of view, and the side that tries to be objective as possible will be most likely the most reliable one. I have all along maintained that creationism does not rule out evolution. On the other hand, when people rule out creationism, they are hardly trying to be objective, are they?


Who has 'ruled out' creationism? It MIGHT be the truth (although, since other cultures were recording history before the Old Testament even claims the existence of a world, it seems unlikely)... but it is NOT science.

If it requires an unfalsifiable variable, it is not science. That doesn't mean it is automatically untrue.

So - no one 'rules out' creationism... they don't even take it into account, because it requires unscientific assumptions.


Err....yeah.....well, poetry is not my stong point. I tend not to excel at that dashing style of yours, Grave. Guess I'll just leave it up to you to entertain the gallery.

Bums on seats, laddie. Bums on seats. We're doing it for the proles, you know...

I know it's a bit much, but could someone pick out the scientific debate from the last page or so, condense it and leave out anything resembling an insult or snide remark? I want to help argue the evolution perspective (actually having somewhat of an education in this area) but I really can't be arsed wading through all of the truisms, pointless arguments and witticisms.

Buarong is saying evolution is as unscientific as Creationism, and can't seem to understand the word "unfalsifible". GnI is letting Buarong distract him, he should condense the posts and focus his attacks.

Buarong is saying evolution is as unscientific as Creationism, and can't seem to understand the word "unfalsifible". GnI is letting Buarong distract him, he should condense the posts and focus his attacks.
Ta very much. Were there any specific examples given, standard arguments questioned etc., or was it merely a sort of "Evolution is rubbish because you can't definitively prove it" kind of argument?

then creationism is definatively rubbish because there is absoloutely no evidence for it whereas theres a stack load of evidene for evoloution.

Ta very much. Were there any specific examples given, standard arguments questioned etc., or was it merely a sort of "Evolution is rubbish because you can't definitively prove it" kind of argument?


Originally Posted by Bruarong
Grave, you are still pointing to the assumptions in creationism as though that means it cannot be a theory, and completely overlooking the assumptions within evolutionary theory. The creationism theory is simply a way of explaining the world that is consistent with a creation event. It observes the world through such a framework, and it is a valid way of studying the universe, as history has shown.

What you appear to be doing is defining the word 'theory' in such a way that it excludes anything but your favourite theory.


Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
If something is unverifiable, it cannot be verified... that means you cannot check it's accuracy. If smething is unfalsifiable, that means there is NO WAY to 'prove it wrong'... there is no situation under which ANY evidence could EVER question the basic assumption, so long as that assumption is held to be self-confirming.


Originally Posted by Bruarong
So the difference between unverifiable and unfalsifiable is that unverifiable means that you cannot check its accuracy, and unfalsifiable means that you cannot check whether it is wrong or right. And you are claiming that evolution is unverifiable and creation is unfalsifiable?

Originally Posted by Bruarong
So the difference between unverifiable and unfalsifiable is that unverifiable means that you cannot check its accuracy, and unfalsifiable means that you cannot check whether it is wrong or right. And you are claiming that evolution is unverifiable and creation is unfalsifiable?
Thankyou Dinaverg, you appear to have talents in reading I cannot learn (no seriously, I could not see the wood for the trees back there, if you'll excuse the rather poor cliché).

The only one I will look at here is the above-quoted passage. If something is unverifiable, it means you cannot chack its accuracy with any known method. In this sense, evolution is unverifiable because it is impossible to measure evolution given the timespans over which it occurs (in the sense of both gradualism and punctualism). One day a method may be developed to accurately measure evolution as a phenomenon, whether this be direct or indirect. It may also be proven to be untrue;the point being that unverifiability does not assume absolute truth of the theory, rather a possibility of truth backed by evidence.

Unfalsifiable theories (yes, I am calling creation a theory for the sake of ease of comparison; I do not believe it to be a true scientific theory, but I'll leave that for now) are assumed to be true from the beginning. They are fixed and hence not open to different interpretations. Any evidence which agrees with the theory will be assimilated (because it fits with the theory and therefore must be true) and any evidence against the theory will be disregarded or somehow twisted in such a way that it fits with the theory. Yes this has happened in the past with evolution, and to a certain extent still does, but evolutionary theory is adjusted with each significant piece of evidence brought to attention. The followers of Creationism, the unfalsifiable theory, merely ignore what could damage them and brush it away, or somehow reinterpret a piece of fixed 'evidence' to allow the new information. I realise this sounds like they are changing the theory to suit the facts, but it is not the case; they are merely changing the facts to suit the theory.

Thus, calling Evolution unverifiable and Creationism unflasifiable does not classify them as similar. In fact, it puts the ethos of each as opposites.

Thankyou Dinaverg, you appear to have talents in reading I cannot learn (no seriously, I could not see the wood for the trees back there, if you'll excuse the rather poor cliché).

The only one I will look at here is the above-quoted passage. If something is unverifiable, it means you cannot chack its accuracy with any known method. In this sense, evolution is unverifiable because it is impossible to measure evolution given the timespans over which it occurs (in the sense of both gradualism and punctualism). One day a method may be developed to accurately measure evolution as a phenomenon, whether this be direct or indirect. It may also be proven to be untrue;the point being that unverifiability does not assume absolute truth of the theory, rather a possibility of truth backed by evidence.

Unfalsifiable theories (yes, I am calling creation a theory for the sake of ease of comparison; I do not believe it to be a true scientific theory, but I'll leave that for now) are assumed to be true from the beginning. They are fixed and hence not open to different interpretations. Any evidence which agrees with the theory will be assimilated (because it fits with the theory and therefore must be true) and any evidence against the theory will be disregarded or somehow twisted in such a way that it fits with the theory. Yes this has happened in the past with evolution, and to a certain extent still does, but evolutionary theory is adjusted with each significant piece of evidence brought to attention. The followers of Creationism, the unfalsifiable theory, merely ignore what could damage them and brush it away, or somehow reinterpret a piece of fixed 'evidence' to allow the new information. I realise this sounds like they are changing the theory to suit the facts, but it is not the case; they are merely changing the facts to suit the theory.

Thus, calling Evolution unverifiable and Creationism unflasifiable does not classify them as similar. In fact, it puts the ethos of each as opposites.

Exactly.

And, I'm arguing you can be 'unverified', and still be 'scientific'... but you can't be 'unfalsified' and still be 'scientific'.

And - if you can't meet the most basic requirement of being 'scientific', what you have is NOT a 'theory'... except in the laziest, lay definitions.

This is important... why?

It came around (largely) because of this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10709183&postcount=34

Bah. The first time I enter into one of these debates in almost a year and all opposition has gone.

Bah. The first time I enter into one of these debates in almost a year and all opposition has gone.

Evil-ooshun is crap, and stupid... and my particular old book is way better than 'facts' any day.

?

How's that?

Evil-ooshun is crap, and stupid... and my particular old book is way better than 'facts' any day.

?

How's that?
Better than some, worse than others.

Better than some, worse than others.

Well, I'm new to it... and it's kinda hard to defend that position...

Well, I'm new to it... and it's kinda hard to defend that position...
Umm...I'm not sure how to help you here. Possibly suggest that I just don't believe hard enough? That's a really low approach taken by a few, IIRC.

Its things like this that reinforce the fact that creationist science deniers are on par with UFO lunatics and other wackos and liars.

The fish doesn't just conveniently fit the theory assumed to be true --it actually fits a prediction made by the theory, that there should be such a creature with such a body structure between two others, found at a strata layer between two others, hopefully that gets fossilized in some catastrophe for us to find millennia later. Finding it does not prove anything, but it adds support to the theory of evolution.

If I read the article right, there was nothing about finding the fossil in the right layers. But I might have missed it. At any rate, supposing one did find what one was looking for in the predicted place, yes, I would have to agree that it would indeed make one's predictions look pretty good. While on the other hand, it could also mean that they have done a good job, consciously or unconsciously, of ignoring all the details that may have cast doubt on the validity of their findings and concentration only on what they wanted to see.


Their conclusion explains how this fish fits into the evolutionary chain; assuming that evolution takes place is rather necessary for that. Their assumption is adequately correct because it is the best explanation they have at the moment. Without a better explanation to take the place of evolution to explain these apparent changes, why should anyone assume differently? Especially when evolution makes sense and is observable in the present-day.

Well I think there might be other valid explanations, such as the fossil belonging to an animal that had a mutations or a series of mutations which had rendered a shoulder-like limb into something like a flipper. Rather than gaining functions, the creature had lost it, through a loss of information. On the face of it, that would still be a type of evolution, but it would mean that it was probably not necessarily a missing link, and probably still found at the right layer of rock, etc.


If, on the other hand, you are simply going to suggest that the fish does not fit into any chain of development, that it is an isolated find, well... so what, then? That doesn't explain anything. Science explains things.


Mmmm, yes, that is another point. Only one fossil. Hard to build a good case from one fossil.


So, the idea is that these bacteria have genetic similiarities to humans because they took genes from us as they fed on us? And that we and chimps have the same genetic structures because we fed off the same foods? Doesn't that imply development, and if not through generations then how?


It is possible that the enteric bacteria got their genes from us, or vica versa, but the point is that function determines specification. Like finding a bill/beak on both a duck and a platypus. We see homology, but we don't think of ancestry. Now, if we allow that creation was a possibility, then specification (e.g. DNA sequence) would reflect on the function for which gene was designed, rather than an indication of ancestry.


There you go again, mistakingly implying science must be truth. Science explains things --it presents the best, most truthful explanation; it does not present "truth". They don't have all the pieces of the puzzle, but every piece they do find that contributes positively to the big picture reinforces all the puzzle.

Willamena, how many times do I have to explain that definition of truth to you? When you see me refer to 'truth' in that context, it simply means reliable information about the material world, not the stuff that one might find in a Holy book.

As for science an its attempt to give the best explanation, how can I go along with a theory when I don't like it's best explanations but believe I have a better one? In order to be a scientist, I would have to go with the explanation that I think is better, otherwise I'm not being a true scientist, even if it puts me at odds with most of the scientific theories.

"...whether life was created or evolved." Life evolves from other life. The mechanism of evolution is not about the origin of life. There is no comparison there. Whether the first life was created by something is irrelevant to evolution.

When I referred to life getting to earth, I was not referring to abiogenesis. I suppose I could have easily have mentioned humans getting here on earth. Yeah, I know that biological evolution is not the same as chemical evolution (abiogenesis), yadda, yadda, ya. If I had a dollar for every time that was mentioned, I'd be rich.


However, whether life was created or evolved through chemical evolution does indeed have a good deal of relevancy to biological evolution. In particular, how is one to distinguish between them? Would there not have been some sort of grey area, an overlap, when one could not call it either life or a bunch of organised chemicals, but somewhere in between. But that was just a side point.


Which assumptions would those be? That species can change from generation to generation? That is open to being false, as you indicated to me above. That natural causes can solely account for these changes? How is that not open to being false? Especially if an intelligent design is someday conclusively demonstrated.

Within the naturalistic way of thinking there are the major nonfalsifyable assumptions, I meant to say, not necessarily in evolutionary ideas.

Although, consider that we do have evidence for small limited amounts of evolution, the assumption is that these small alterations are adequate to account for much larger alterations, such as the development of eukaryotes from prokaryotes. We cannot demonstrate that one prokaryote infected another and thus mitochondria, nuclei, and other organelles were formed, so it remains an assumption that cannot be verified or falsified, but an extremely vital part of the evolutionary story, that prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes.

In order to be a scientist, I would have to go with the explanation that I think is better, otherwise I'm not being a true scientist, even if it puts me at odds with most of the scientific theories.

There is no way in which this is logical.

Thankyou Dinaverg, you appear to have talents in reading I cannot learn (no seriously, I could not see the wood for the trees back there, if you'll excuse the rather poor cliché).

Welcome to the debate. Let's see if you can add some light to it.


The only one I will look at here is the above-quoted passage. If something is unverifiable, it means you cannot chack its accuracy with any known method. In this sense, evolution is unverifiable because it is impossible to measure evolution given the timespans over which it occurs (in the sense of both gradualism and punctualism). One day a method may be developed to accurately measure evolution as a phenomenon, whether this be direct or indirect. It may also be proven to be untrue;the point being that unverifiability does not assume absolute truth of the theory, rather a possibility of truth backed by evidence.

I argue that evolution is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. We can assume all we like that birds evolved from reptiles, but we cannot demonstrate it, we cannot check it, we cannot prove that they didn't, and we cannot prove that they did. The best we can hope for is to build a case for it based on our observation of the modern world. So, yes, I mostly agree with your statement, except that we may not be ever able to prove evolution true or false. We are in this kind of state where we are having to speculate, rather than test, and we cannot say whether we shall ever be free of such a state. I suppose that is where I differ from you. Typically, people like you are always the optimist, and while I have no problem with optimism in general, you have to admit that there is no guarentee that we shall ever be in a position to verify or falsify the major concepts within evolution.


Unfalsifiable theories (yes, I am calling creation a theory for the sake of ease of comparison; I do not believe it to be a true scientific theory, but I'll leave that for now) are assumed to be true from the beginning. They are fixed and hence not open to different interpretations. Any evidence which agrees with the theory will be assimilated (because it fits with the theory and therefore must be true) and any evidence against the theory will be disregarded or somehow twisted in such a way that it fits with the theory. Yes this has happened in the past with evolution, and to a certain extent still does, but evolutionary theory is adjusted with each significant piece of evidence brought to attention. The followers of Creationism, the unfalsifiable theory, merely ignore what could damage them and brush it away, or somehow reinterpret a piece of fixed 'evidence' to allow the new information. I realise this sounds like they are changing the theory to suit the facts, but it is not the case; they are merely changing the facts to suit the theory.

Are you suggesting that evolutionary theory may not be true? Since you have singled out creationism as assuming creation to be true from the beginning, are you suggesting then that evolutionary theory does not make this assumption? That would just about isolate you, since I don't know any one else who would take that approach. Both theories are developed consistently with their assumptions.

And I suggest that you don't really know that much about creation theories if you think that they are all about changing the 'facts' to preserve the theory. Creationism is not exclusive of evolution, but can include it. Creationism, essentially, is simply not committed to only natural causes. Many forms of creationism do not demand a six-day creation or a young earth. In fact anyone who believes that God had ANYTHING to do with the universe is a creationist of some sort.


Thus, calling Evolution unverifiable and Creationism unflasifiable does not classify them as similar. In fact, it puts the ethos of each as opposites.

I don't think you have brought much light into this argument at all. Firstly you started by saying that evolution was not verifiable or falsifyable, and then you mentioned that creationism with also not verifiable or falsifyable, and now you are saying that they are opposites. Why? Because creationists change the facts and lie (although you never mentioned lying, this is what you have implied, in effect) to preserve their theory, while evolutionists are all about objectivity, and never disregard anything that might call their favourite theory into question? Well, you certianly are showing your bias.

I don't think you have brought much light into this argument at all. Firstly you started by saying that evolution was not verifiable or falsifyable,


Show where?

Since he is the one doing the experiment, that is saying the same thing. Experiments are done by humans, for humans, so the effect must be detectable by humans, or for humans by machines, or there is no effect.

Or there is no detectable effect. In the absence of detecting an effect, one should not assume that there was no effect. That is hardly scientific.

Absence of proof does not prove an absence of anything but proof.

Show where?

OK, he/she didn't mention that it was unfalsifyable, but only that it was unverifyable. You got me on that one.

OK, he/she didn't mention that it was unfalsifyable, but only that it was unverifyable. You got me on that one.

Evolution would be easily falsifiable. All it would take, would be the spontaneous transformation of a creature into a different creature, to shoot the wheels out from under 'evolution theory' completely (certainly, in anything LIKE it's current form).

I haven't claimed that... I've claimed that the problem with Creationism and ID is that they require unfalsifiable assumptions.

And I am trying to show you that the idea that God did not create is also an unfalsifiable assumption. It's the opposite assumption, but it is still unfalsifyable. So now we are back to square one.


Speculation does not have the 'authority' of real 'theory', until it is conformed to the Scientific Method.

So, how does one ensure that a speculation is conformed to the scientific method? Provide a test by which it can be falsified? In that case you would have to throw away perhaps most of the speculations in science and evolutionary theory.


As for your tiny bugs, specultaion in such scenarios can be based on parallels, or model cases.

Yeah, but it gets interesting when those model cases are also evolutionary scenarios with examples of 'fantastically clever evolution'.


If it galls you that your pet 'theory' doesn't work with that toolkit, stop trying to claim it as science. You'll be happy with your mumbojumbo version, I'll be happy with observations and testing... and ne'er the twain shall meet.

No, no, we have to thrash this thing out. If my pet theory doesn't work and is incorrect, I want no part in it.


It's not what I want... you need to have a mechanism, to claim it (scientifically) as a 'theory'.

In other words, 'give me the mechanism of how God did it, and I might let you call it a theory'. Come on, Grave, do be sensible.


No - unfalsifiable means it can NEVER be 'proved' WRONG.

That's funny, because I have taken unfalsifiable to mean that it cannot be proven wrong now.


I'm not sure why 'unverified' and 'unfalsifiable' give you such problems... didn't you once say you work in a lab? Even BASIC lab understanding requires you to appreciate that measurements must be both 'accurate' AND 'precise'... two terms that seem to be almost interchangable... but that refer to different properties of 'rightness'.

But what has 'accurate' got to do with 'right'. We know that an asteroid is attracted to the solar system, but we cannot predict where or if it might strike the earth. Do that have any relationship to evolutionary theory? Its as if you are saying that we know evolution is true, but we cannot be accurate enough to predict what it might look like in a thousands years? Come on Grave. That just looks like a thinly veiled attempt to say that you 'know' that evolution is true but that I can only assume that God has created. Away with your clever little tricks.


It is unscientific. It fails to follow the scientific method.

Creationism is considered unscientific by those who define scientific as only allowing natural causes. But there really isn't any need to define scientific in this way. It's just an attempt be some people to draw a line beween naturalism and creationism, and label anything that isn't naturalistic as non-scientific.


It won't wear it's jacket, so it can't get in this club. Since it is so adamant about it's no-jacket stance, one wonders WHY it is SO desperate to get in?

Because I do believe in God, and I want to be able to do science without cutting out the part of my brain that believes in God. I don't want to be forced to come up with inferior explanations. Much rather live with open questions than embrace an obviously flawed theory.



I beg to differ. My mother-in-law is living testament to the fact that your sweeping generalisation is untrue. She takes the Bible ABSOLUTELY literally, and believes that evolution is the work of satan deceiving mere humans.


Good for her. But what she believes is hardly the definition of creationism.


How does it wear thin? If ammonites are a good design for a few million years, in almost all conditions... we should expect to find them over quite a large area.

True, but it would hardly be reasonable to expect that none of the ancestors or descendants of a such a successful creature would not have some sort of representation somewhere in the earth, or if there were a few species in this category, one would hardly expect all of the species that ever existed to show such a lack.



Not one SINGULAR cataclysm, that was the ONLY one, ever, no.

But, we are not talking about one event, ever. We are talking about broad swathes of time.


But I thought many scientists got excited about finding fossils in layers, as if each layer represented a catastrophe, and each layer contained fossils of a different era.


If it requires an unfalsifiable variable, it is not science. That doesn't mean it is automatically untrue.

Science would be a poor thing indeed if it rejected truth in favour of science.


So - no one 'rules out' creationism... they don't even take it into account, because it requires unscientific assumptions.

Not quite. No one tests for creation, but plenty do take it into account.

Evolution would be easily falsifiable. All it would take, would be the spontaneous transformation of a creature into a different creature, to shoot the wheels out from under 'evolution theory' completely (certainly, in anything LIKE it's current form).

Theoretically, yes, but that does nothing to help make the theory unfalsifyable right now.

Theoretically, yes, but that does nothing to help make the theory unfalsifyable right now.

falsifiable /= false

it's not evolution's fault that so far as we can tell it's got things correct. there are lots of possible ways for it to be false, but none of those actually happen.

And I am trying to show you that the idea that God did not create is also an unfalsifiable assumption. It's the opposite assumption, but it is still unfalsifyable. So now we are back to square one.


No we are NOT back to square one, because you have singularly failed to show 'evolution' as unfalsifiable.

On the other hand, Creation and ID require an unfalsifiable entity... the 'creator' or 'designer'.


So, how does one ensure that a speculation is conformed to the scientific method? Provide a test by which it can be falsified? In that case you would have to throw away perhaps most of the speculations in science and evolutionary theory.


Speculation is well and good, but until it has survived the rigours of the scientific method, it is JUST speculation.

Example - consistently, experiments to 'measure' the universe have suggested there is far more 'material' than appears to be the case.

Our observation was viewing experimental data, our theory said that our data should match a certain model... but it comes nowehere near, and there is no obvious place in which the theory could fail.

So - we speculate - and we end up speculating 'Dark Matter'... that is, material that fulfills the requirements of our conflicted math and observations.

But, until we can 'observe' this material, and until we can explain it through a mechanism, and test that mechanism... Dark Matter will only EVER be speculation.


Yeah, but it gets interesting when those model cases are also evolutionary scenarios with examples of 'fantastically clever evolution'.


'Fantastically clever evolution', is usually just a result of failure to understand how it 'works', or the idea that a specific 'goal' was 'evolved towards'.


No, no, we have to thrash this thing out. If my pet theory doesn't work and is incorrect, I want no part in it.


Well... I have some bad news for you, then... your pet theory will NEVER be scientific.


In other words, 'give me the mechanism of how God did it, and I might let you call it a theory'. Come on, Grave, do be sensible.


Again - why make this MY decision? I am a scientist, not 'science'.

'Science' requires observation, and a suggestion of a mechanism to explain that observation. If ID and Creationism cannot achieve that basic entry requirement, they have no right to pretend to 'scientific' ambition.


That's funny, because I have taken unfalsifiable to mean that it cannot be proven wrong now.


Okay. I'd say you were wrong, though.


But what has 'accurate' got to do with 'right'. We know that an asteroid is attracted to the solar system, but we cannot predict where or if it might strike the earth. Do that have any relationship to evolutionary theory? Its as if you are saying that we know evolution is true, but we cannot be accurate enough to predict what it might look like in a thousands years? Come on Grave. That just looks like a thinly veiled attempt to say that you 'know' that evolution is true but that I can only assume that God has created. Away with your clever little tricks.


The point I was making... I thought you said you worked in a lab?... the point was, measurement equipment is quality checked and calibrated. It is tested against a standard (or series of standards) to se how closely it matches the expected value. THIS is 'accuracy'. It is tested several times, usually, to see how OFTEN it hits that level. THIS is 'precision'.

'Verifiable' and 'falsifiable' are two 'tools' in our toolbox, conceptually similar, but NOT 'the same'.


Creationism is considered unscientific by those who define scientific as only allowing natural causes. But there really isn't any need to define scientific in this way. It's just an attempt be some people to draw a line beween naturalism and creationism, and label anything that isn't naturalistic as non-scientific.


No - you are wrong. Plain and simple, I'm afraid.

I wish I could accomodate you, but creation is considered unscientific because it fails to meet the rigours of science. Does science have a bias towards the natural? OF COURSE IT DOES! It MUST do - because it deals with what can be observed... and that, primarily, is going to be the mundane physical world.


Because I do believe in God, and I want to be able to do science without cutting out the part of my brain that believes in God. I don't want to be forced to come up with inferior explanations. Much rather live with open questions than embrace an obviously flawed theory.


No one says you must excise that part of your brain... but if you WANT to honestly call what you do 'science', you MUST be able to operate WITHOUT that part.


Good for her. But what she believes is hardly the definition of creationism.


On the contrary - in this locale, she is pretty mch THE definition of a Creationist.


True, but it would hardly be reasonable to expect that none of the ancestors or descendants of a such a successful creature would not have some sort of representation somewhere in the earth, or if there were a few species in this category, one would hardly expect all of the species that ever existed to show such a lack.


You are chasing red herings. There ARE variants in some of the fossils... like the Ammonites. But, why are there so many Ammonites so alike... simple... because they were well=adapted for their varied environments, and thus survived and increased fantastically well. If you only get a fossil from, say, one in a million entities - you are going to have pretty good chances of finding a certain kind of Ammonite that produced (say) 10 young a year, for... about 100,000,000 years...


But I thought many scientists got excited about finding fossils in layers, as if each layer represented a catastrophe, and each layer contained fossils of a different era.


Okay - that's actually about what I said.


Science would be a poor thing indeed if it rejected truth in favour of science.


Not at all. Science MUST be prepared to reject truth in favour of science... because 'truth' may be perception, and science MUST be allowed to evolve.

It's actually the STRENGTH of science... the simple fact that it can be 'wrong'.


Not quite. No one tests for creation, but plenty do take it into account.

Not as an assumption or 'factor', in a scientific analysis.

falsifiable /= false

it's not evolution's fault that so far as we can tell it's got things correct. there are lots of possible ways for it to be false, but none of those actually happen.

Exactly. Thank you.

falsifiable /= false

it's not evolution's fault that so far as we can tell it's got things correct. there are lots of possible ways for it to be false, but none of those actually happen.

In that case, we might as well speculate over the possibility of God coming down and showing us how he created. It is theoretically possible.

Theoretically, yes, but that does nothing to help make the theory unfalsifyable right now.
Wrong. Every second there is an opportunity for a creature to magically change into something else. Why even every tenth of a second. And at any given moment literally tens of billions of organisms are being directly observed by humans not to mention our myriad recording devices. Yet, in hundreds of years not one credible instance of such a transformation exits.

31,556,926 seconds/yr * 10 tenths of seconds /s * 200 years * (the total number of organisms being directly observed by humanity with the possibility of corroboration including other individual humans) = the number of opportunities for such a magical instance to enter the record and falsify evolution. Which is an absurdly large number of opportunities to see some magical mechanism of the universe which must certainly be exceptionally prolific to create the fantastic diversity and quanty of life we observe. To say nothing of the amazing creatures we know only through the fossil record.

In fact as humanity has increased greatly in numbers we should see a corresponding increase in credible magical appearences. Which of course is not the case. Unless we're all under the dominion of an all powerful, invisible Trickster God, (Trickster Gods necessarily being incombatible with a God of perfect Truth such as the God in the Christian tradition).

Your creation myth is for idiots anyway. The moon is made of rock, the plank spectrum it gives off is far beyond the ability of humans to see without machines, it is not a light, it is a reflector of light. The light of the nearest of an uncountable number of stars. A remarkably unremarkable example of a star, at that. Genesis is little more than excuse for simpletons to abdicate their wonder at the grandure of the universe because deep down they believe thinking makes baby Jesus cry because they themselves don't like putting forth the effort. Like all cowards, the world would be better off if they took a play from the Heaven's Gate playbook. The wages of religion imposed ignorance have consistantly been poverty, famine, disease, war, and death. Secular wonder has built all the prosperity our species enjoys. If only the true believers were as content with the sparse fruits of their faith as they are to deny the wealth of the secular achievements (such as healthcare) to people with more pragmatic concerns than believing a particular brand of magic no one will ever see.

Evolutionary theory predicted such an example of a creature existed. Creationism predicts that this is not necessarily the case. How is it that Evolutionary theory has been guessing correctly for 150 years, and Christian Creationism has been guessing wrong for 2000? Maybe that's where all the magic went.

I Must Say i Am Enjoying this... please continue

Read trhough the whole thing, and it seems to me that Bruarong hasn't yet justified his own view (FCreationism) he's even admitted that it is just a story to explain the creation of the universe. I havn't seen any scientific proof that Creationism happens-it is all just assuption.

Of coruse, much of evoloution is just assumption as well, all science is. BUT IT'S ASSUMPTION BACKED UP BY PROOF. There no everdence for Creationism at all.

And on your point that there isn't a fossil for every single change, thats because 99.999999% of creatures don't get possalised. it requires incredably specific conditions to happen, which are less and less likly as you go back in time. There where millions of dionosaurs, but how many have been fossalised? a couple of thousand.

Wrong. Every second there is an opportunity for a creature to magically change into something else. Why even every tenth of a second. And at any given moment literally tens of billions of organisms are being directly observed by humans not to mention our myriad recording devices. Yet, in hundreds of years not one credible instance of such a transformation exits.

That is quite irrelevent, since no one is really looking for any such transformation. What you appear to be saying is that whenever we see something like a miracle, we can scrape the whole science thing.


31,556,926 seconds/yr * 10 tenths of seconds /s * 200 years * (the total number of organisms being directly observed by humanity with the possibility of corroboration including other individual humans) = the number of opportunities for such a magical instance to enter the record and falsify evolution. Which is an absurdly large number of opportunities to see some magical mechanism of the universe which must certainly be exceptionally prolific to create the fantastic diversity and quanty of life we observe. To say nothing of the amazing creatures we know only through the fossil record.


Still irrelevant. A magical event probably would not falsify evolution, because it would be magical, and outside of the realm of science. Science doesn't have anything to say about miracles.


In fact as humanity has increased greatly in numbers we should see a corresponding increase in credible magical appearences. Which of course is not the case. Unless we're all under the dominion of an all powerful, invisible Trickster God, (Trickster Gods necessarily being incombatible with a God of perfect Truth such as the God in the Christian tradition).

The Christian God is certainly capable of remaining undetectable if he so chose.



Your creation myth is for idiots anyway. The moon is made of rock, the plank spectrum it gives off is far beyond the ability of humans to see without machines, it is not a light, it is a reflector of light. The light of the nearest of an uncountable number of stars. A remarkably unremarkable example of a star, at that. Genesis is little more than excuse for simpletons to abdicate their wonder at the grandure of the universe because deep down they believe thinking makes baby Jesus cry because they themselves don't like putting forth the effort.


You have hardly contributed to a reasonable debate. Save your rants for threads that do not require some sort of sensible argument.


Like all cowards, the world would be better off if they took a play from the Heaven's Gate playbook. The wages of religion imposed ignorance have consistantly been poverty, famine, disease, war, and death. Secular wonder has built all the prosperity our species enjoys. If only the true believers were as content with the sparse fruits of their faith as they are to deny the wealth of the secular achievements (such as healthcare) to people with more pragmatic concerns than believing a particular brand of magic no one will ever see.

Wow, you are so full of anger. What makes you hate Christianity that much?


Evolutionary theory predicted such an example of a creature existed. Creationism predicts that this is not necessarily the case. How is it that Evolutionary theory has been guessing correctly for 150 years, and Christian Creationism has been guessing wrong for 2000? Maybe that's where all the magic went.

Are you suggesting that predictions based on evolution have all been right? Would that be why they predicted after Darwin's time that the Australian Aboriginies were less evolved and thus more closely related to the monkeys, and how they got a shock in the last few years to discover that all the modern humans are related to a single mother, exactly what creationist had been predicting all along?

Read trhough the whole thing, and it seems to me that Bruarong hasn't yet justified his own view (FCreationism) he's even admitted that it is just a story to explain the creation of the universe. I havn't seen any scientific proof that Creationism happens-it is all just assuption.

I really don't mind if you address your posts directly to me.

Of course creationism, like any explanation, is an attempt to explain what we observe. I can't prove it to you, but I can present you a case for it, providing you were interested and prepared to listen. I don't have a problem with evolution, generally, except where some people assume that life, humans, the universe, etc., got here ONLY through natural causes. Thus, it is possible that God used evolution and natural causes to create man, however, I maintain that he didn't HAVE to.

As far as I'm concerned, the way to explain the world is look at it from all sorts view points, and that is why I am often coming up against evolutionary arguments--not because I think that they must be wrong, but because they may be wrong, particularly when the evidence is lacking.


Of coruse, much of evoloution is just assumption as well, all science is. BUT IT'S ASSUMPTION BACKED UP BY PROOF. There no everdence for Creationism at all.

Obviously this is your belief, but if you care to look a little deeper, you will see that the data uncovered by science does not constitue proof. The conclusions in evolutionary theory, such as all of life coming from a single ancestor, cannot be verified. One can only build a case for it, and such a case constitutes evidence, or an argument. The same can be made for creationism.


And on your point that there isn't a fossil for every single change, thats because 99.999999% of creatures don't get possalised. it requires incredably specific conditions to happen, which are less and less likly as you go back in time. There where millions of dionosaurs, but how many have been fossalised? a couple of thousand.

I guess you missed my point then. Let me try again. If you have a million fossils from a particular species, and those fossils were dated from a wide range of ages, from 1000 years old to 10 million years old, what you would see is a species that appears to be static. It hasn't appeared to change much in a long time. Now, if you had a theory that this species happened to be an ancestor of another species, then one might expect that there had to be some transitory animals between these two species. But since there are no transitory fossils, we probably would be mildly suprised, but conclude that the transitory animals were so few that they didn't leave any (or many) fossils.

But, if we saw the same patten with every collection of fossils that we have-- a large collection of static fossils covering a long time frame, and a serious lack of transitory fossils--it would begin to look like our expectations had been wrong. When Darwin first talked about transitory fossils, he didn't have large collection of fossils to observe, so he predicted that future research would uncover a sufficient number of both the static fossils and transitory fossils to validate his theory. It sparked off an intense search that continues to this day, with teams hunting all over the far places like the North Pole for these transitory fossils. The progress has been rather disappointing. We have only succeeded in finding plenty of static fossils, and precious few that appear to be anything like transitory fossils.

It has meant that we have had to think of all sorts of reasons why species would evolve without leaving any fossils, together with other species that appear to have no trouble leaving millions of fossils. There have been a few explanations, but no proof for those explanations.

That is quite irrelevent, since no one is really looking for any such transformation. What you appear to be saying is that whenever we see something like a miracle, we can scrape the whole science thing.


No - not at all. Why do you make this ridiculous leaps to the extreme?

What is being said is almost the EXACT opposite of what you claim.

If we spot one of this 'miraculous transformations', it suggests strongly that our current model is flawed (perhaps, fatally flawed) and a NEW theory, based on THAT OBSERVATION will need to be derived.


Still irrelevant. A magical event probably would not falsify evolution, because it would be magical, and outside of the realm of science. Science doesn't have anything to say about miracles.


Where do you get these terms from? Why do you separate 'magic' from 'science'? JUST so you can insist on a division?

You, yourself, talking about spontaneous transformations, deride such an idea, with trivial terms like 'magical'.

And, you are wrong that science would not have "anything to say about miracles"... it would just not ahve any way to EXPLAIN them, under our current understanding.

You seem to view 'science' as very akin to a holy book... somehow immobile, preset.

Are you suggesting that predictions based on evolution have all been right? Would that be why they predicted after Darwin's time that the Australian Aboriginies were less evolved and thus more closely related to the monkeys, and how they got a shock in the last few years to discover that all the modern humans are related to a single mother, exactly what creationist had been predicting all along?

You are, I suspect confusing the 'theory of evolution' (Which, let us not forget, is largely based on Herbert Spenser's ideas, anyway)... with the abberrant nationalist model of 'Social Darwinism'... which was a misappropriation of reasonable science, to provide a pseudo-science rationale for caste-divides.

I really don't mind if you address your posts directly to me.

Of course creationism, like any explanation, is an attempt to explain what we observe.

Not true, and you know it.

Creationism is accepted by the religious, based on the supposed 'inerrancy' of the scripture.

It doesn't matter if it matches observable data or not. Where scripture conflicts with evidence, the evidence is assumed to be flawed.

If that were NOT the case, and you HONESTLY acted on what you are saying "creationism... is an attempt to explain what we observe'... then there would be no argument here.

I guess you missed my point then. Let me try again. If you have a million fossils from a particular species, and those fossils were dated from a wide range of ages, from 1000 years old to 10 million years old, what you would see is a species that appears to be static. It hasn't appeared to change much in a long time. Now, if you had a theory that this species happened to be an ancestor of another species, then one might expect that there had to be some transitory animals between these two species. But since there are no transitory fossils, we probably would be mildly suprised, but conclude that the transitory animals were so few that they didn't leave any (or many) fossils.

But, if we saw the same patten with every collection of fossils that we have-- a large collection of static fossils covering a long time frame, and a serious lack of transitory fossils--it would begin to look like our expectations had been wrong.

You are basing all your assumptions on your OWN inability to comprehend.

I'm sorry, but I don't accept "I don't get it" as a valid argument.

What IS a transitional fossil?

At heart, a transitional fossil MUST be, the fossil left behind by a transitional evolutionary form, yes?

And - according to basic principia, WHAT is the 'catalyst' of this transition?

We can imagine a whole slew of different variants of a single entity-form, spread out over a great deal of time, over a wide area of space. For MOST of their co-existence, ALL these forms will be roughly equal in terms of their interactions with the environment.

But - what if we encounter a food shortage, for example... we will find that only those forms BEST suited to minimal food supplies, or best equipped to hunt or gather, will survive.

What if there was some OTHER environment change? We will find that... those best equipped to survive in (for example) cold climates will survive.

But - the environment (by which, I don't just mean the geography) is DYNAMIC. Situations CONTINUE to change. So - most transitional forms, will actually be temporary steps... unless the environment favours that form for quite some time. And THAT is why transitional fossils are rarities, and why we don't find the 'tiny changes' you seem to want.

No we are NOT back to square one, because you have singularly failed to show 'evolution' as unfalsifiable.

So how do you propose to falsify the idea that all of life came from a single ancestor? Wait until someone finds a lifeform that cannot possibly related? May as well be waiting for God to come down. Do you see my point? If your idea of falsifying something is hanging around waiting on a possibility, then it is not effectively an attempt to falsify at all. It's just hoping, not falsifying.


'Fantastically clever evolution', is usually just a result of failure to understand how it 'works', or the idea that a specific 'goal' was 'evolved towards'.

I may agree with you in this point, but you misunderstood me. 'Fantastically clever evolution' was not the words that I used to describe it, but the words that came out of a lecture recently about the evolution of quorum sensing. The expert was discribing it in this way. Quite telling, don't you think. In other words, they have no idea how quorum sensing may have evolved, but it must have because there is no other alternative that is 'scientific' enough. Personally, if he chooses to commit to only natural causes, fine, but don't expect me embrace something that I can see is just plain unlikely.


Well... I have some bad news for you, then... your pet theory will NEVER be scientific.

You know what, let's say I were to agree with you. But if unscientific theories are better at explaining reality than so-called scientific theories, why should I bother with the so-called scientific theories? Better live with open questions than embrace an obviously flawed theory. Better be commited to the discovery of reality than continue in a fantasy world of so called 'scientifically correct' theories.


The point I was making... I thought you said you worked in a lab?... the point was, measurement equipment is quality checked and calibrated. It is tested against a standard (or series of standards) to se how closely it matches the expected value. THIS is 'accuracy'. It is tested several times, usually, to see how OFTEN it hits that level. THIS is 'precision'.

'Verifiable' and 'falsifiable' are two 'tools' in our toolbox, conceptually similar, but NOT 'the same'.

Then why are you saying it the long way around? Why not simply assert that evolution is true but unmeasurable, while creation is not only false but also unmeasurable? Why are you beating around the bush? Why not say that evolution is qualifiable but not quantifiable, while creation is neither?

What it really comes down to is this: you assert that you know evolution is true but that it cannot be measured. However, just a few posts ago, you were saying that science cannot prove the evolutionary story. So on what do you base your assertion that evolution is right? Your belief? Some proof that you have that I don't know about?


I wish I could accomodate you, but creation is considered unscientific because it fails to meet the rigours of science. Does science have a bias towards the natural? OF COURSE IT DOES! It MUST do - because it deals with what can be observed... and that, primarily, is going to be the mundane physical world.


The bias that the scientific method has is that it can only investigate the material world, but that simply means that it cannot investigate anything that is not material. But you are taking that too far, by saying that because it can only investigate the material world, then everything in the material world can be explained by natural forces. It doesn't follow that a scientist must rule out creation as a possibility.


No one says you must excise that part of your brain... but if you WANT to honestly call what you do 'science', you MUST be able to operate WITHOUT that part.

I actually don't care whether you think I am doing science or not. What you label it has little to do with the progress that I make in my research. And I do operate with every part of my brain. I even ask God regularly to help me in my investigation of the natural world, because I know he is capable of helping me. And because I can make progress, write papers, teach students, etc., your assertion that I must be able to operate without my beliefs in God is just plain wrong. And I am by no means the only one.


You are chasing red herings. There ARE variants in some of the fossils... like the Ammonites. But, why are there so many Ammonites so alike... simple... because they were well=adapted for their varied environments, and thus survived and increased fantastically well. If you only get a fossil from, say, one in a million entities - you are going to have pretty good chances of finding a certain kind of Ammonite that produced (say) 10 young a year, for... about 100,000,000 years....

The modern fossil collect does not support evolution. Simple as that.



Not at all. Science MUST be prepared to reject truth in favour of science... because 'truth' may be perception, and science MUST be allowed to evolve.


That is nonsense. You don't reject a concept in favour of science, unless you think that science has found a fact that invalidates the concept. So the rejecting the old and embracing the new is always in the direction of truth. Thus science (the version that I like) will never reject truth, but embrace it wherever it is found. Thus, science develops it's ideas to reach a closer understanding of reality. It doesn't get there by rejecting truth at all.



It's actually the STRENGTH of science... the simple fact that it can be 'wrong'.

Except that you believe your version of the 'scientific story' so rather strongly, even without proof. One would think that you are more commited to your beliefs than the 'truth'.

No - not at all. Why do you make this ridiculous leaps to the extreme?

What is being said is almost the EXACT opposite of what you claim.

If we spot one of this 'miraculous transformations', it suggests strongly that our current model is flawed (perhaps, fatally flawed) and a NEW theory, based on THAT OBSERVATION will need to be derived.



The point was made that evolutionary theory is falsifyable because we are carefully looking for highly unlikey events that would prove it false. This is a rather silly notion, because that is not what makes a theory falsifyable. Falsifying a theory involves using the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis can not be applied to such a scenario. Otherwise we might as well argue that God might come down and show us a thing or two about the past, and thus our idea of a creator God is also falsifyable because of that possibility, and that in that case a 'new theory based on that observation will need to be derived'. You don't falsify something with possibilities, particularly unlikely ones.


And, you are wrong that science would not have "anything to say about miracles"... it would just not ahve any way to EXPLAIN them, under our current understanding.


Small distinction. Splitting hairs, really. And one suspects that if science really did get enough information to explain an event as a miracle, that the event would probably no longer be a miracle. But that is mere speculation.


You are, I suspect confusing the 'theory of evolution' (Which, let us not forget, is largely based on Herbert Spenser's ideas, anyway)... with the abberrant nationalist model of 'Social Darwinism'... which was a misappropriation of reasonable science, to provide a pseudo-science rationale for caste-divides.

Nope. The poster to which I replied was assuming that predictions based on evolution were all correct, while predictions based on Chrsitian creationism were all wrong. But it was the creationists who were right about all the humans in the world being related through a single woman, as modern genetics have shown.

Not true, and you know it.

Creationism is accepted by the religious, based on the supposed 'inerrancy' of the scripture.

It doesn't matter if it matches observable data or not. Where scripture conflicts with evidence, the evidence is assumed to be flawed.

If that were NOT the case, and you HONESTLY acted on what you are saying "creationism... is an attempt to explain what we observe'... then there would be no argument here.

If your idea of creationism is based on your mother-in-law's opinion or someone's grandmother's opinion, I suggest it's time to update your ideas.

Anyone who thinks God may have had something to do with the existence of the material world is a creationist of one sort or another.

However, if you insist on using the traditional strictly six-day creationist as a target, well I suppose it is clear that that position is not based on science but religion.

You are basing all your assumptions on your OWN inability to comprehend.


My reasons, I think you mean, not my assumptions.


What IS a transitional fossil?


It is defined by the huge numbers of fossils that we have that appear to have not changed, and apparent lack of fossils that are expected to bridge that gap.



At heart, a transitional fossil MUST be, the fossil left behind by a transitional evolutionary form, yes?

Why must we assume that there were any life forms that were less abundant than others? Based only on their apparent lack in the fossil record and predictions based on evolutionary theory? Wouldn't that mean that if such fossils were not found that evolutionary theory could be wrong? Why don't you consider that possibility?


And - according to basic principia, WHAT is the 'catalyst' of this transition?

We can imagine a whole slew of different variants of a single entity-form, spread out over a great deal of time, over a wide area of space. For MOST of their co-existence, ALL these forms will be roughly equal in terms of their interactions with the environment.

But - what if we encounter a food shortage, for example... we will find that only those forms BEST suited to minimal food supplies, or best equipped to hunt or gather, will survive.

What if there was some OTHER environment change? We will find that... those best equipped to survive in (for example) cold climates will survive.

But - the environment (by which, I don't just mean the geography) is DYNAMIC. Situations CONTINUE to change. So - most transitional forms, will actually be temporary steps... unless the environment favours that form for quite some time. And THAT is why transitional fossils are rarities, and why we don't find the 'tiny changes' you seem to want.

Yes, that is one explanation, but it begins to get a bit thin when you have to use the same explanation to explain the evolution of every species on the planet (not to mention all the ones that are no longer alive). One would expect there to be at least some cases (among all those millions of species and fossils) of intact records of evolution showing changes by degree. This is precisely why evolutionary theory is looking weak at the level of the fossil record.

Anyone who thinks God may have had something to do with the existence of the material world is a creationist of one sort or another.

not in any relevant or current sense.

BUT NOW THERE ARE TWO darwin ---> :o :sniper: MISSING LINKS!!!!

So how do you propose to falsify the idea that all of life came from a single ancestor?


Strawman. I'm discussing the evolution 'mechanism' (the theory)... not the ORIGINS of all life.

Wait until someone finds a lifeform that cannot possibly related? May as well be waiting for God to come down.


Why?

A life form that cannot be related would be quantifiable, and observable.

The god of the bible, for example, is 'eternal' and 'infinite'... and thus, cannot be quantified or falsified.

Do you see my point? If your idea of falsifying something is hanging around waiting on a possibility, then it is not effectively an attempt to falsify at all. It's just hoping, not falsifying.


You just don't understand what falsifiable means. God can NEVER be falsified, because of the 'value' we attribute to him. That's the WHOLE point.


I may agree with you in this point, but you misunderstood me. 'Fantastically clever evolution' was not the words that I used to describe it, but the words that came out of a lecture recently about the evolution of quorum sensing. The expert was discribing it in this way. Quite telling, don't you think. In other words, they have no idea how quorum sensing may have evolved, but it must have because there is no other alternative that is 'scientific' enough. Personally, if he chooses to commit to only natural causes, fine, but don't expect me embrace something that I can see is just plain unlikely.


You are confusing 'terminology' with a literal mechanism.


You know what, let's say I were to agree with you. But if unscientific theories are better at explaining reality than so-called scientific theories, why should I bother with the so-called scientific theories? Better live with open questions than embrace an obviously flawed theory. Better be commited to the discovery of reality than continue in a fantasy world of so called 'scientifically correct' theories.


Knock yourself out!

I have never argued otherwise... follow 'truth' through ANY and EVERY angle.

Just - if it isn't science... DON'T CALL IT science.


Then why are you saying it the long way around? Why not simply assert that evolution is true but unmeasurable, while creation is not only false but also unmeasurable?


Because THAT isn't what I'm saying.

Why are you beating around the bush? Why not say that evolution is qualifiable but not quantifiable, while creation is neither?

What it really comes down to is this: you assert that you know evolution is true but that it cannot be measured.


I haven't said THAT either.


However, just a few posts ago, you were saying that science cannot prove the evolutionary story. So on what do you base your assertion that evolution is right? Your belief? Some proof that you have that I don't know about?


Again - more strawmen.


The bias that the scientific method has is that it can only investigate the material world, but that simply means that it cannot investigate anything that is not material. But you are taking that too far, by saying that because it can only investigate the material world, then everything in the material world can be explained by natural forces.


Your logic is flawed. My dog and my table have four legs. Thus, my dog IS a table.


It doesn't follow that a scientist must rule out creation as a possibility.


I haven't said that, either.


I actually don't care whether you think I am doing science or not. What you label it has little to do with the progress that I make in my research. And I do operate with every part of my brain. I even ask God regularly to help me in my investigation of the natural world, because I know he is capable of helping me. And because I can make progress, write papers, teach students, etc., your assertion that I must be able to operate without my beliefs in God is just plain wrong. And I am by no means the only one.


If your latest paper says "Bugs reproduce at such-and-such a rate, because God told me", then it is not science.

If you make the same discovery, through observation and testing, it IS science.

That is what I eman by being able to divorce your work from your god.


The modern fossil collect does not support evolution. Simple as that.


I disagree. Show me the evidence.


That is nonsense. You don't reject a concept in favour of science, unless you think that science has found a fact that invalidates the concept. So the rejecting the old and embracing the new is always in the direction of truth. Thus science (the version that I like) will never reject truth, but embrace it wherever it is found. Thus, science develops it's ideas to reach a closer understanding of reality. It doesn't get there by rejecting truth at all.


You think you know what 'truth' is?

Or that 'truth' is ever realistically attainable?

We hope for 'truth'... but what we are ACTUALLY following, is good explanations.


Except that you believe your version of the 'scientific story' so rather strongly, even without proof. One would think that you are more commited to your beliefs than the 'truth'.

More strawmen. Where have I even said what I 'believe'?

The point was made that evolutionary theory is falsifyable because we are carefully looking for highly unlikey events that would prove it false. This is a rather silly notion, because that is not what makes a theory falsifyable. Falsifying a theory involves using the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis can not be applied to such a scenario. Otherwise we might as well argue that God might come down and show us a thing or two about the past, and thus our idea of a creator God is also falsifyable because of that possibility, and that in that case a 'new theory based on that observation will need to be derived'. You don't falsify something with possibilities, particularly unlikely ones.


Actually, that is exactly how you falsify something... with the possibility that it could be proved false.

Indeed, that is practically the definition.

God - on the other hand, is argued to be beyond the udnerstanding of man and his science. Is argued to be infinite. Is argued to be eternal.

These 'infinite' and 'eternal' characteristics, cannot be verified, even if 'God' did 'come down'. That is why 'god' is unfalsifiable, and why such 'theories' are not theories.


Small distinction. Splitting hairs, really. And one suspects that if science really did get enough information to explain an event as a miracle, that the event would probably no longer be a miracle. But that is mere speculation.


No - HUGE difference. Science could record what was being perceived, and could make all kinds of statements about it.... the thing science could NOT do, with our current understanding, would be to EXPLAIN the activity.

That is a WORLD of difference.


Nope. The poster to which I replied was assuming that predictions based on evolution were all correct, while predictions based on Chrsitian creationism were all wrong.


You certainly seem to be under that impression.

But it was the creationists who were right about all the humans in the world being related through a single woman, as modern genetics have shown.

They haven't shown that, at all... they have shown that the part of the DNA pattern that is ONLY passed in the female of our species, suggests common ancestry.

There are a number of reasons why this might be so - from the extinction of (unknown numbers of) other parallel patterns, to the fact that this 'common ancestor' was likely something other than what we term 'human'.

If your idea of creationism is based on your mother-in-law's opinion or someone's grandmother's opinion, I suggest it's time to update your ideas.

Anyone who thinks God may have had something to do with the existence of the material world is a creationist of one sort or another.

However, if you insist on using the traditional strictly six-day creationist as a target, well I suppose it is clear that that position is not based on science but religion.

Then - perhaps, it is not my definition that is flawed.

Are you saying you believe 'god' was involved, but that Genesis is less than accurate?

My reasons, I think you mean, not my assumptions.


No: "But, if we saw the same patten with every collection of fossils that we have..." is the premise of an assumption.


It is defined by the huge numbers of fossils that we have that appear to have not changed, and apparent lack of fossils that are expected to bridge that gap.


That doesn't actually answer the question. A 'transition fossil' would be the fossil of a 'transition' stage creature.


Why must we assume that there were any life forms that were less abundant than others?


Because there are ALWAYS life forms that are less abundant than others. Symmetry WOULD be interesting, but it just isn't realistic or practical.... there is unlikely to have EVER been a point at which there were equal numbers of everything.

Based only on their apparent lack in the fossil record and predictions based on evolutionary theory?


No - based on the differing numbers of fossils in the fossil record, and the fact that we find more remains of creatures that are more numerous now.

Wouldn't that mean that if such fossils were not found that evolutionary theory could be wrong?


Like Dragons? If we can't find Dragon fossils, evolution MUST be wrong, yes?

Or pixies? Where are all the pixie fossils? Honestly, evolutionary theory is just FULL of holes...

Why don't you consider that possibility?


What makes you think I have not considered that possibility?


Yes, that is one explanation, but it begins to get a bit thin when you have to use the same explanation to explain the evolution of every species on the planet (not to mention all the ones that are no longer alive).


Not at all. General rules tend to be... well, general.

Most animals need oxygen to survive. Take away all the oxygen, they don't survive. It's a 'general rule'... and rules BECOME 'general' by applying across a range of situations.

One would expect there to be at least some cases (among all those millions of species and fossils) of intact records of evolution showing changes by degree. This is precisely why evolutionary theory is looking weak at the level of the fossil record.

I still don't think you get it... at all.

By your logic, we can assume that there were never any dinosaurs that broke a leg. After all, we haven't found a fossil that shows it...

Fossils are laid down in very rare circumstances. They are BY FAR the exception,rather than the rule.

The fact that we have found as MANY transitory forms as we have, considering all the time during which such remains could have been destroyed or disturbed (not LEAST, by humans), is actually fairly clinching evidence to support evolutionary theory.

Or there is no detectable effect. In the absence of detecting an effect, one should not assume that there was no effect. That is hardly scientific.

Absence of proof does not prove an absence of anything but proof.
We are not talking about absense of proof, we are talking about absence of detectable effect, and we being the ones the effect must be detectable for for it to be significant in any way, shape or form.

This cartoon is more than apt in this thread:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_04102006_520.gif

If I read the article right, there was nothing about finding the fossil in the right layers. But I might have missed it. At any rate, supposing one did find what one was looking for in the predicted place, yes, I would have to agree that it would indeed make one's predictions look pretty good. While on the other hand, it could also mean that they have done a good job, consciously or unconsciously, of ignoring all the details that may have cast doubt on the validity of their findings and concentration only on what they wanted to see.
But whatever is ignored most likely was not included in the explanation the hypothesis was testing for. If it was to be taken into account, a new hypothesis would be made to include it. It's like, if you are a archaeologist/geologist and wanted to test for these other things you felt were ignored, then you'd step in with YOUR hypothesis and go for it.

Well I think there might be other valid explanations, such as the fossil belonging to an animal that had a mutations or a series of mutations which had rendered a shoulder-like limb into something like a flipper. Rather than gaining functions, the creature had lost it, through a loss of information. On the face of it, that would still be a type of evolution, but it would mean that it was probably not necessarily a missing link, and probably still found at the right layer of rock, etc.
Certainly; and if scientists may have a way to test that this is an isolated incident of beast, but if they do not then they must stick with their best explanation, which is the evolutionary chain.

It is possible that the enteric bacteria got their genes from us, or vica versa, but the point is that function determines specification. Like finding a bill/beak on both a duck and a platypus. We see homology, but we don't think of ancestry. Now, if we allow that creation was a possibility, then specification (e.g. DNA sequence) would reflect on the function for which gene was designed, rather than an indication of ancestry.
But if the bacteria got their genes from us, or vice versa, that implies that change happened, moving from one state to another. Change is the basis of evolution.

Willamena, how many times do I have to explain that definition of truth to you? When you see me refer to 'truth' in that context, it simply means reliable information about the material world, not the stuff that one might find in a Holy book.
Truth is truth; it doesn't come in different kinds. The truth I was referring to was in your expectation that science should provide incontroversial proof of ancestry between these fish to validate evolution --that is not necessary. These scientists do not have a purpose of validating evolution; rather, evolution is the science upon which they explain the development of these fish.

As for science an its attempt to give the best explanation, how can I go along with a theory when I don't like it's best explanations but believe I have a better one? In order to be a scientist, I would have to go with the explanation that I think is better, otherwise I'm not being a true scientist, even if it puts me at odds with most of the scientific theories.
If you have a better scientific explanation than the current best, you have a professional duty, I would think, to bring it forward for peer review and testing.

I argue that evolution is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. We can assume all we like that birds evolved from reptiles, but we cannot demonstrate it, we cannot check it, we cannot prove that they didn't, and we cannot prove that they did. The best we can hope for is to build a case for it based on our observation of the modern world.
There you go! That's science. 'Proving ancestry' is not science, unless of course you can find a way to test for it; the best case built is science.

So, yes, I mostly agree with your statement, except that we may not be ever able to prove evolution true or false. We are in this kind of state where we are having to speculate, rather than test, and we cannot say whether we shall ever be free of such a state. I suppose that is where I differ from you. Typically, people like you are always the optimist, and while I have no problem with optimism in general, you have to admit that there is no guarentee that we shall ever be in a position to verify or falsify the major concepts within evolution.
Science isn't about knowing the truth. Science is about possibilities and probabilities and best explanations and, yes, even guesses that will be tested, and it is about practical applications.

If we ever know the truth, we will no longer need science.

We are not talking about absense of proof, we are talking about absence of detectable effect, and we being the ones the effect must be detectable for for it to be significant in any way, shape or form.


What you seem to be saying is that when we cannot detect an effect, it isn't significant. However, some effects are not immediately detectable. Others cannot be detected by any means currently in our disposal. In either case, an absence of a detectable effect does not mean an absence of a significant effect.

I was referring to proof, because it tends to have the same limitations.

Strawman. I'm discussing the evolution 'mechanism' (the theory)... not the ORIGINS of all life.


And I was talking about the idea that all of life evolved from a single ancestor (or very similar ancestors), a major conclusion and assumption within evolutionary theory.


A life form that cannot be related would be quantifiable, and observable.

The god of the bible, for example, is 'eternal' and 'infinite'... and thus, cannot be quantified or falsified.


The discovery of a completely different lifeform would be quantifiable and observable, but is neither until it is discovered. Thus one cannot claim that possibility as an adequate way to falsify evolutionary based hypotheses. Thus, it places evolutionary theory in no wise a more 'falsifiable' position than assumptions about a creator. Only when the discovery of an alternate life form is made can we observe it. But we don't even know if another life form is possible, just like science cannot say whether the arrival of God is possible. Thus, one cannot falsify either the concept of creation or evolution, unless we could travel back in time, or unless such discoveries are made. Until then, both creation and evolution remain unfalsifiable.


You just don't understand what falsifiable means. God can NEVER be falsified, because of the 'value' we attribute to him. That's the WHOLE point.


No, only because of the value you put on him (and others in your position). You do so by creation a division between the natural and the supernatural, and define the supernatural as something that does not interact with the natural. Then, of course, the supernatural can not be observed by the natural because you define it that way. I do no such thing. For me, God exists in both the natural world (that which is detectable through our five sense) and the spirit world. He could show up in the natural world any day, if he so chose.


I have never argued otherwise... follow 'truth' through ANY and EVERY angle.

Just - if it isn't science... DON'T CALL IT science.


You just said that science must be prepared to reject truth. What is it now? Reject it or follow it?


If your latest paper says "Bugs reproduce at such-and-such a rate, because God told me", then it is not science.

If you make the same discovery, through observation and testing, it IS science.
That is what I eman by being able to divorce your work from your god.


There is a distinction between God and work. God is not work, and work is not got, but it isn't a real divorce between God and work, because I try to honour Him with my work, and I do it because I believe He wants me to. And because I refuse to be committed to only natural causes to explain the causes and origins of the universe.




You think you know what 'truth' is?

Or that 'truth' is ever realistically attainable?

We hope for 'truth'... but what we are ACTUALLY following, is good explanations.


We didn't put man on the moon using good explanations, but reasonably accurate predictions and reasonably detailed understanding of the material world. That is what I mean by 'truth' that science seeks. Information about the material world that can be relied on.

Actually, that is exactly how you falsify something... with the possibility that it could be proved false.

One needs a way to falsify something here and now, not an unlikely event in the unforseen future. That was what I meant.


These 'infinite' and 'eternal' characteristics, cannot be verified, even if 'God' did 'come down'. That is why 'god' is unfalsifiable, and why such 'theories' are not theories.


Presumeably, if God did come done, he would be capable of allowing us to verify Him.




They haven't shown that, at all... they have shown that the part of the DNA pattern that is ONLY passed in the female of our species, suggests common ancestry.

There are a number of reasons why this might be so - from the extinction of (unknown numbers of) other parallel patterns, to the fact that this 'common ancestor' was likely something other than what we term 'human'.

The only reason why they think the common ancestor might not be human is that their calculations are based on the evolution of an ape-like creature to humans. The mitochondrial DNA clock is a huge variable, setting mitochondrial eve anywhere from 6 thousand to 200 thousand years ago. And if 200 thousand years ago, she was probably not a modern human.

Common ancestry of all modern humans is virtually the only possible explanation from these findings, so your objection that they havn't shown that doesn't seem to be based on much.

There you go! That's science. 'Proving ancestry' is not science, unless of course you can find a way to test for it; the best case built is science.

My argument is that they have come to the best explanation that is restricted to the assumption that only natural causes were involved. My argument is that science is restricted to investigation natural causes, but not to assume that natural causes are the only ones that exist. Therefore, they don't have the best explanation, but the best explanation possible within their assumptions. I am not committed to their assumptions, thus I cannot say that their explanations are the best.


Science isn't about knowing the truth. Science is about possibilities and probabilities and best explanations and, yes, even guesses that will be tested, and it is about practical applications.

If we ever know the truth, we will no longer need science.

Wrong. Science wants to know the truth. If AIDS is caused by a virus, then it is the sort of truth that science seeks. Truth about the material world. Science is also seeking possibilities to combat AIDS, and it is true that currently there is no known cure for AIDS. You appear to be afraid of using the word truth. One day, we probably shall find a way to cure AIDS permanently, and thus it will no longer be true that 'currently there is no known cure for AIDS', and yet that statement will still be true of the year 2006.

And I was talking about the idea that all of life evolved from a single ancestor (or very similar ancestors), a major conclusion and assumption within evolutionary theory.


As I said... strawman. The 'theory of evolution' doesn't CARE where the first lifeforms came from, or how many of them there were.

Stop confusing issues.


The discovery of a completely different lifeform would be quantifiable and observable, but is neither until it is discovered. Thus one cannot claim that possibility as an adequate way to falsify evolutionary based hypotheses. Thus, it places evolutionary theory in no wise a more 'falsifiable' position than assumptions about a creator. Only when the discovery of an alternate life form is made can we observe it. But we don't even know if another life form is possible, just like science cannot say whether the arrival of God is possible. Thus, one cannot falsify either the concept of creation or evolution, unless we could travel back in time, or unless such discoveries are made. Until then, both creation and evolution remain unfalsifiable.


Not at all. You obviously fail to understand the difference between 'falsifiable'... and 'falsified'.

If the theory of evolution HAD been 'falsified'... we'd be talking about a different theory, right now.


No, only because of the value you put on him (and others in your position). You do so by creation a division between the natural and the supernatural, and define the supernatural as something that does not interact with the natural. Then, of course, the supernatural can not be observed by the natural because you define it that way. I do no such thing. For me, God exists in both the natural world (that which is detectable through our five sense) and the spirit world. He could show up in the natural world any day, if he so chose.


I don't claim God is 'omnipotent' or 'eternal'.... the scripture does.

And we can NOT 'falsify' eternity.

It's nothing to do with how I 'define' it... 'God' just cannot be falsified.


You just said that science must be prepared to reject truth. What is it now? Reject it or follow it?


Up to you - as I said, find your own 'truth'.

Just, if it ain't science, don't pretend it is.


There is a distinction between God and work. God is not work, and work is not got, but it isn't a real divorce between God and work, because I try to honour Him with my work, and I do it because I believe He wants me to. And because I refuse to be committed to only natural causes to explain the causes and origins of the universe.


You 'divorce' him from your methodology, one assumes.


We didn't put man on the moon using good explanations, but reasonably accurate predictions and reasonably detailed understanding of the material world. That is what I mean by 'truth' that science seeks. Information about the material world that can be relied on.

Look at the technology of 1969. We put a man on the moon by a HELL of a lot of luck.

One needs a way to falsify something here and now, not an unlikely event in the unforseen future. That was what I meant.


That might be what you mean.... but what you mean is irrelevent.

Falsifiable does NOT mean we can IMMEDIATELY falsify... just that it is POSSIBLE.

Presumeably, if God did come done, he would be capable of allowing us to verify Him.


If your 'god' is NOT infinite, not immortal, not omnipotent, not eternal, not omnipresent and NOT omniscient.... then, MAYBE, we could 'measure' it.

But, then... it wouldn't really be the 'god' that scripture claims either.

Either god IS god.... and unfalsifiable, or god is a FALSE god.


The only reason why they think the common ancestor might not be human is that their calculations are based on the evolution of an ape-like creature to humans. The mitochondrial DNA clock is a huge variable, setting mitochondrial eve anywhere from 6 thousand to 200 thousand years ago. And if 200 thousand years ago, she was probably not a modern human.

Common ancestry of all modern humans is virtually the only possible explanation from these findings, so your objection that they havn't shown that doesn't seem to be based on much.

The readings do not show ONE human.

They don't even HAVE TO point to one pre-human entity.

Just a genetic commonality, at some point.

But, enough of the topic surfing... this is WAY off topic.

What you seem to be saying is that when we cannot detect an effect, it isn't significant. However, some effects are not immediately detectable. Others cannot be detected by any means currently in our disposal. In either case, an absence of a detectable effect does not mean an absence of a significant effect.

I was referring to proof, because it tends to have the same limitations.
No, what I am saying is that when we cannot detect an effect it is not scientifically significant. Science begins with observation.

Even if it's not immediately detected, even if its only observed years down the road, it is still detectable.

My argument is that they have come to the best explanation that is restricted to the assumption that only natural causes were involved. My argument is that science is restricted to investigation natural causes, but not to assume that natural causes are the only ones that exist. Therefore, they don't have the best explanation, but the best explanation possible within their assumptions. I am not committed to their assumptions, thus I cannot say that their explanations are the best.
Yes! They came up with the best scientific explanation, we can hardly fault them for that; that all they are required to do. The best explanation need not be scientific, but scientists tend to look for the best scientific explanation.

Wrong. Science wants to know the truth. If AIDS is caused by a virus, then it is the sort of truth that science seeks. Truth about the material world. Science is also seeking possibilities to combat AIDS, and it is true that currently there is no known cure for AIDS. You appear to be afraid of using the word truth. One day, we probably shall find a way to cure AIDS permanently, and thus it will no longer be true that 'currently there is no known cure for AIDS', and yet that statement will still be true of the year 2006.
"Today, no cure for AIDS" is an expression of an unknown, not of a truth. We don't know for sure that someone out there doesn't have a cure, perhaps not yet identified, or identified and not yet broadcast to the world. On the other hand, "Today, a cure for AIDS," when it is found and known, is an expression of a truth.

We have that truth, then, but that truth is not the science. Since we have that truth, we no longer have a need for the science that led to it. Now science can start in on, "a better cure for AIDS."

Yes! They came up with the best scientific explanation, we can hardly fault them for that; that all they are required to do. The best explanation need not be scientific, but scientists tend to look for the best scientific explanation.


That's what I was trying to get at... if someone doesn't believe 'truth' can be found through science... they MAY be right, but science isn't going to find that truth, and it is never going to look in the right way TO find that truth.

Moreover, if truth can be found some other way, that is GOOD... but it ISN'T science. I wonder why people keep trying to claim it is?

As I said... strawman. The 'theory of evolution' doesn't CARE where the first lifeforms came from, or how many of them there were.

Stop confusing issues.



I was not referring to where the life forms came from or how many there were, but to the concept within evolutionary theory that all of modern observable life forms are descendents of an original simple life form. I thought I was being quite specific.


Not at all. You obviously fail to understand the difference between 'falsifiable'... and 'falsified'.

If the theory of evolution HAD been 'falsified'... we'd be talking about a different theory, right now.


When something is falsifiable, it means we can set up an experiment to determine whether a particular null hypothesis about that 'something' is true or false. For example, if I have a gene that I suspect codes for antibiotic resistance, I need to perform some experiments that demonstrate that the hypothesis that says that it doesn't code for an antibiotic resistance protein is false. In so doing, I will have provided good evidence that the gene really does cause antibiotic resistance.

In your scenario, however, you are saying that the possible discovery of an exceptional life form would demonstrate the idea that all of modern life came from a single ancestor as false, and thus this possibility renders that concept falsifiable. I argue that so long as we cannot perform the 'falsifying experiments' right now, the theory is not falsifyable. For all we know, the existence of completely different life form may well be completely impossible--science is not in a position to say.

It is impossible to falsify evolutionary theory right now, therefore, it is currently a non-falsifyable theory.


I don't claim God is 'omnipotent' or 'eternal'.... the scripture does.

And we can NOT 'falsify' eternity.

It's nothing to do with how I 'define' it... 'God' just cannot be falsified.


We wouldn't need to measure God to know that he existed, just like we don't need to measure the universe to know that it also exists.


Up to you - as I said, find your own 'truth'.

Just, if it ain't science, don't pretend it is.


This point is not about my personal search for the truth, but whether you think science should seek the truth. I'll ask you again. Do you think science should seek the truth?


You 'divorce' him from your methodology, one assumes.


Obviously, I haven't got a reference to God in my methods and protocols, but then again, there isn't a reference to me in them either.
I don't divorce myself from my methodology, but I do distinguish between myself and my search.

No, what I am saying is that when we cannot detect an effect it is not scientifically significant. Science begins with observation.

Even if it's not immediately detected, even if its only observed years down the road, it is still detectable.

Then you are wrong. Because if we cannot detect an effect, we would be silly to assume that either there is no effect or that it isn't significant. When we find no effect, we label the result as 'no observable effect'. Perhaps because we have learned that it may be that someone else in the future may find an effect. To avoid looking silly, then, we defend ourselves by saying that we could not observe the effect under our conditions.

When something is falsifiable, it means we can set up an experiment to determine whether a particular null hypothesis about that 'something' is true or false.
Nah; all it means is that it has the potential to be false.

If we set up an experiment to determine its falsity, and succeed, that potential is lost.

An experiment to determine falsity means it is "being falsified", if the experiment succeeds; that it "is falsifiable" implies potential.

For example, if I have a gene that I suspect codes for antibiotic resistance, I need to perform some experiments that demonstrate that the hypothesis that says that it [does] code for an antibiotic resistance protein is false.
That's not falsifiability. That's science.

That might be what you mean.... but what you mean is irrelevent.

Falsifiable does NOT mean we can IMMEDIATELY falsify... just that it is POSSIBLE.

The problem is that we don't know if it is possible for a completely different life form to exist. Therefore, we don't know if it is possible. We can only say that 'it may be possible, for all we know'.

And even if one did exist, we cannot necessarily demonstrate that it isn't related to us by ancestry. But we would have to be able to do this in order to be in a position to falsify current evolutionary theory.



If your 'god' is NOT infinite, not immortal, not omnipotent, not eternal, not omnipresent and NOT omniscient.... then, MAYBE, we could 'measure' it.

But, then... it wouldn't really be the 'god' that scripture claims either.

Either god IS god.... and unfalsifiable, or god is a FALSE god.


Wrong. Jesus is God. And he proved by his miracles that he was capable of forgiving sins, a position only God can have, according to the Bible. Thus, to the people of his time, he was falsifyable. Thus, if he was falsifyable once, he ought to be capable of being falsifyable again today or tomorrow.


The readings do not show ONE human.

They don't even HAVE TO point to one pre-human entity.

Just a genetic commonality, at some point.

But, enough of the topic surfing... this is WAY off topic.

The discovery does not show one human, but it does MEAN one human. Given the circumstances, and the ability to compare human mitochondrial DNA to chimp mitochondrial DNA, it does point to either a common human ancestor or a common almost-human ancestor, some point after the separation of the chimp and human ancestral lines.

Then you are wrong. Because if we cannot detect an effect, we would be silly to assume that either there is no effect or that it isn't significant. When we find no effect, we label the result as 'no observable effect'. Perhaps because we have learned that it may be that someone else in the future may find an effect. To avoid looking silly, then, we defend ourselves by saying that we could not observe the effect under our conditions.
Do you know what the suffix "-able" denotes to a noun or verb? It denotes potential.

Detectable means that it has the potential to be detected.

The problem is that we don't know if it is possible for a completely different life form to exist. Therefore, we don't know if it is possible. We can only say that 'it may be possible, for all we know'.

And even if one did exist, we cannot necessarily demonstrate that it isn't related to us by ancestry. But we would have to be able to do this in order to be in a position to falsify current evolutionary theory.
Just so... if we don't know that a completely different life-form exists --if it is possible that a completely different life-form *does* exist --then that makes the theory that all life descends from one life-form "falsifiable".

That we don't know means that it is possible.

We can demonstrate whether it has similarity in genes --that is all that is claimed in common ancestry.

Yes! They came up with the best scientific explanation, we can hardly fault them for that; that all they are required to do. The best explanation need not be scientific, but scientists tend to look for the best scientific explanation.

If you have been reading my posts (and understanding them), you ought to have realized that what I am saying is that one need not be restricted to the existence of purely natural causes (in their world view) in order to be scientific. Thus, when these scientists come up with their best explanation, I look to see if that explanation is restricted to natural causes or not. If so, then I might conclude that that is the best explanation that they can come up with given their limitations. Part of science is the process of attributing natural causes to observable effects.

My argument has been not so much that I think science ought to include God in their explanations, but rather to resist the unnecessary 'pressure' to have a naturalistic explanation for everything right here and now. Better live with open questions than embrace an obviously flawed theory.



"Today, no cure for AIDS" is an expression of an unknown, not of a truth. We don't know for sure that someone out there doesn't have a cure, perhaps not yet identified, or identified and not yet broadcast to the world. On the other hand, "Today, a cure for AIDS," when it is found and known, is an expression of a truth.

OK, then, but still the sort of truth that science can deal with.


We have that truth, then, but that truth is not the science. Since we have that truth, we no longer have a need for the science that led to it. Now science can start in on, "a better cure for AIDS."

I have never claimed that science is truth. It is a process by which we seek truth.

Just so... if we don't know that a completely different life-form exists --if it is possible that a completely different life-form *does* exist --then that makes the theory that all life descends from one life-form "falsifiable".

That we don't know means that it is possible.

We can demonstrate whether it has similarity in genes --that is all that is claimed in common ancestry.

I disagree. We don't know if it is even possible. Therefore, to say that such a possibility falsifies the theory depends on the assertion that an alternative life form is possible. Only when we can know that an alternative life form is possible (and that we can prove that it isn't related to us) can we assert that the evolutionary theory is falsifiable.

Do you know what the suffix "-able" denotes to a noun or verb? It denotes potential.

Detectable means that it has the potential to be detected.

Ah, I see. Well, what I meant (rather than detectable) was 'effects that cannot be detected under specified conditions'. And all of observation occurs 'under specified conditions'.

If you have been reading my posts (and understanding them), you ought to have realized that what I am saying is that one need not be restricted to the existence of purely natural causes (in their world view) in order to be scientific.
Yet, you have admitted on many occasions that science is limited to the natural.

You seem to waver between the two positions.

I do understand that you feel a need to redefine what science is.

Thus, when these scientists come up with their best explanation, I look to see if that explanation is restricted to natural causes or not. If so, then I might conclude that that is the best explanation that they can come up with given their limitations. Part of science is the process of attributing natural causes to observable effects.

My argument has been not so much that I think science ought to include God in their explanations, but rather to resist the unnecessary 'pressure' to have a naturalistic explanation for everything right here and now. Better live with open questions than embrace an obviously flawed theory.
The naturalism is necessary for it to be science --if we draw in unnatural causes, we redefine what science is.

A 'best' explanation that does not restrict itself to causes within the scope of the contingent natural world is not scientific, unless we redefine science.

You seem to imply that the flaw is that it does not take into account the supernatural. That's not a flaw of science, that is, as Grave said, its strength.

OK, then, but still the sort of truth that science can deal with.
There is only one sort. :)

I have never claimed that science is truth. It is a process by which we seek truth.
Alright; but you have implied it, when you suggest that the fossil record must be complete before we can claim evidence of ancestry is knowledge of ancestry, or that we must be there to observe before it we can be known. It is 'truth' that you are suggesting that science must know *before* it can make any scientific claims.

I disagree. We don't know if it is even possible. Therefore, to say that such a possibility falsifies the theory depends on the assertion that an alternative life form is possible. Only when we can know that an alternative life form is possible (and that we can prove that it isn't related to us) can we assert that the evolutionary theory is falsifiable.
First off, as others have said before me, falisifying and falsifiability are not the same thing. To say that something is falsifiable is not to say that it is falsifying a theory. The possibility only *allows for* the falsification of the theory.

But we do know it is possible that life exists on other planets, as, through science, we can conceive of it with a relatively high level of plausibility.

And doesn't the Bible say, "All things are possible with God" or something to that effect? And if so, shouldn't *you* be the one arguing in favour of the unknown being possible? The supernatural is unknown.

Yet, you have admitted on many occasions that science is limited to the natural.

You seem to waver between the two positions.

I do understand that you feel a need to redefine what science is.

I wasn't aware of any wavering in my arguments, but it is possible. And I am aware that the debate has a tendency to come down to a simple definition of science. It may be that science has many versions, and perhaps we need not thrash out a concensus on a single definition.


The naturalism is necessary for it to be science --if we draw in unnatural causes, we redefine what science is.

Perhaps, but I argue that that is your definition of science. If my definition of science is not the same as yours, do you have the right to say that my definition isn't science?


A 'best' explanation that does not restrict itself to causes within the scope of the contingent natural world is not scientific, unless we redefine science.

I don't know if you missed that point, but the best way to have progress in science is not necessarily always to seek a 'best' explanation. It is sometimes better to leave the question open than to fill it with nonesense. Better to say 'we just don't know' rather than assume some sort of responsibility to find the 'best' explanation for everything within a particular set of parameters.
If that is the one and only definition of science, I have to say that I have never been a scientist, and never will be. Plus, humans haven't really been doing science until after chaps like Darwin redefined it to it's current form.

Therefore, rather than have an explanation that doesn't work, it is better not to have an explanation. I suppose that is a major point of my criticism of naturalism (that element within science that you have taken for science). It forces one to come up with all sorts of explanations using nothing but one's imagination. Generating explanations is not a bad exercise in itself. But using those explanations to demonstrate that alternative explanations are not science is rather offensive.


You seem to imply that the flaw is that it does not take into account the supernatural. That's not a flaw of science, that is, as Grave said, its strength.

That is only a problem with the world view that divides reality into the natural and the supernatural. Take that point of view away, and the tension is relieved somewhat.


There is only one sort. :)


There are truth's that are knowable through the five senses, and there are truths that require a deeper understanding. It is true that my wife cooks meals, but it is a deeper truth that she loves me.



Alright; but you have implied it, when you suggest that the fossil record must be complete before we can claim evidence of ancestry is knowledge of ancestry, or that we must be there to observe before it we can be known. It is 'truth' that you are suggesting that science must know *before* it can make any scientific claims.

It wouldn't have to be complete (according to evolutionary expectations, that is--for all we know it could already be virtually complete), just supportive of evolutionary theory. Currently, I don't think it is, based on what I have read.

First off, as others have said before me, falisifying and falsifiability are not the same thing. To say that something is falsifiable is not to say that it is falsifying a theory. The possibility only *allows for* the falsification of the theory.

But we do know it is possible that life exists on other planets, as, through science, we can conceive of it with a relatively high level of plausibility.

And doesn't the Bible say, "All things are possible with God" or something to that effect? And if so, shouldn't *you* be the one arguing in favour of the unknown being possible? The supernatural is unknown.

But it is possible for God to make himself known to us. Thus that also becomes a possibility. Does that mean creationism is falsifyable?

I was not referring to where the life forms came from or how many there were, but to the concept within evolutionary theory that all of modern observable life forms are descendents of an original simple life form. I thought I was being quite specific.


And, again, I say - that is irrelevent. You are attempting to conflate different parts of the same field into some kind of 'unified' argument.

The 'theory of evolution' has NOTHING TO DO with origins. So - leave it out of the discussion.


When something is falsifiable, it means we can set up an experiment to determine whether a particular null hypothesis about that 'something' is true or false. For example, if I have a gene that I suspect codes for antibiotic resistance, I need to perform some experiments that demonstrate that the hypothesis that says that it doesn't code for an antibiotic resistance protein is false. In so doing, I will have provided good evidence that the gene really does cause antibiotic resistance.

In your scenario, however, you are saying that the possible discovery of an exceptional life form would demonstrate the idea that all of modern life came from a single ancestor as false, and thus this possibility renders that concept falsifiable. I argue that so long as we cannot perform the 'falsifying experiments' right now, the theory is not falsifyable. For all we know, the existence of completely different life form may well be completely impossible--science is not in a position to say.

It is impossible to falsify evolutionary theory right now, therefore, it is currently a non-falsifyable theory.


And, again - I say you are utterly wrong. Come, my friend... this is EXACTLY why I so frequently suspect you of no science background, this really IS a basic science principle, and you still don't appear to understand.

Let me cite the Wikipedia, for an 'easy' insight... I don't seem to be able to word it sufficiently well:

"The property of being contingent, defeasible, or falsifiable is a logical property. Thus, for example, to show that a physical law is falsifiable, one is not required to show that it is physically possible to violate it, one need show only that an exception to the law is logically possible." (Emphasis mine).

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


We wouldn't need to measure God to know that he existed, just like we don't need to measure the universe to know that it also exists.


But, how would you know it was YOUR god?


This point is not about my personal search for the truth, but whether you think science should seek the truth. I'll ask you again. Do you think science should seek the truth?

No. That isn't science's job. Science is a mechanism to describe mechanisms.

It CAN be a 'path' to 'truth' for some, perhaps... but 'finding truth' is akin to 'proving' things, and, therefore, outside of the remit of science.


Obviously, I haven't got a reference to God in my methods and protocols, but then again, there isn't a reference to me in them either.
I don't divorce myself from my methodology, but I do distinguish between myself and my search.

Exactly. That's my point. The 'you' factor is something you try to remove, as much as possible, from your work... it's the difference between subjective results and objective ones. You do the same thing with your religion, one assumes.

The problem is that we don't know if it is possible for a completely different life form to exist. Therefore, we don't know if it is possible. We can only say that 'it may be possible, for all we know'.

And even if one did exist, we cannot necessarily demonstrate that it isn't related to us by ancestry. But we would have to be able to do this in order to be in a position to falsify current evolutionary theory.


First - your argument is bogus... all we have to show is that our new 'lifeform' spontaneously generated from our old lifeform, in some new and different way. That is ALL that would be required to shoot a fatal hole through the current 'evolutionary theory'. We do NOT have to show that it is ENTIRELY disconnected from what went before... only that it does not fit within the accepted model.

But - regarding you 'totally differerent lifeform':

You read much science fiction? The idea of 'alien races' that are entirely different to our own, is a fairly common mechanism... but, we actually have the 'ingredients', if you will, to have 'alien' life created on THIS planet...

Let me explain.

All of our native lifeforms, thus far discovered, have been carbon-based. They use carbon as the basic building block of molecules, because of it's incredible versatility. It is carbon's ability to form bonds that change shape in so many ways, that are so adaptable, that is it's strength... and the reason WHY it is particularly suited to being the building-block of life. All 'organic' chemistry relies on this property of Carbon.

However, while being especially versatile... Carbon isn't ENTIRELY unique. Silicon has similar bond-adaptability - even being able to form 'resonance bonds', like Carbon. Silicon hasn't yet been shown to be used in the production of nearly as many possible molecular combinations as Carbon (yet), but it can form a very large number... so many, indeed, that a silicon 'lifeform' is not inconceivable.

You must surely agree, if we did discover silicon 'life', we would be FORCED to accept that it was not "related to us by ancestry".


Wrong. Jesus is God. And he proved by his miracles that he was capable of forgiving sins, a position only God can have, according to the Bible. Thus, to the people of his time, he was falsifyable. Thus, if he was falsifyable once, he ought to be capable of being falsifyable again today or tomorrow.


Don't try to cloud the issue... Jesus on earth, was falsifiable (if he ever even existed, which has never been 'proved') as a HUMAN body. Any 'spiritual' connotation you want to ADD ON to that, is impossible to falsify.


The discovery does not show one human, but it does MEAN one human. Given the circumstances, and the ability to compare human mitochondrial DNA to chimp mitochondrial DNA, it does point to either a common human ancestor or a common almost-human ancestor, some point after the separation of the chimp and human ancestral lines.

Unless mitochondrial DNA 'evolves'.... our 'common' ancestor could have been millions of years ago.... but the specific iteration we see now, might be a new 'mutation' of that.

I don't get why you keep insisting on arguing sidelines... unless it is just to avoid the heart of the topic.

I don't know if you missed that point, but the best way to have progress in science is not necessarily always to seek a 'best' explanation. It is sometimes better to leave the question open than to fill it with nonesense. Better to say 'we just don't know' rather than assume some sort of responsibility to find the 'best' explanation for everything within a particular set of parameters.
If that is the one and only definition of science, I have to say that I have never been a scientist, and never will be. Plus, humans haven't really been doing science until after chaps like Darwin redefined it to it's current form.
Some would argue that is the case: that our modern science began after Darwin, when Charles Peirce (19th Century) and Karl Popper (1930's) placed the last pieces in the evolving definition.

Therefore, rather than have an explanation that doesn't work, it is better not to have an explanation. I suppose that is a major point of my criticism of naturalism (that element within science that you have taken for science). It forces one to come up with all sorts of explanations using nothing but one's imagination. Generating explanations is not a bad exercise in itself. But using those explanations to demonstrate that alternative explanations are not science is rather offensive.
I would concede that point, except for one thing: science begins with observation, and for every observable phenomenon, it is possible to conceive of a natural explanation because the world is contingent. Effects follow causes, and in turn are the causes of more effects. Contingency is very helpful. It may not provide a satisfying explanation, it may not be the absolute 'right' explanation, and it need not be nonsense; but there is always some sort of rational explanation possible that can be held up as "best" at any given time.

Originally Posted by Willamena
You seem to imply that the flaw is that it does not take into account the supernatural. That's not a flaw of science, that is, as Grave said, its strength.
That is only a problem with the world view that divides reality into the natural and the supernatural. Take that point of view away, and the tension is relieved somewhat.
When you take away the divide between natural and supernatural, you also take away a number of other things that contribute to form that, and to form our current view of reality, things like the division between subject and object. It is because we have individual subjective viewpoints to contrast with objective reality that the supernatural is possible. With the split between subject and object gone, you also remove many of our philosophies, and our languages, certainly all the Indoeuropean ones, that rely so heavily upon that split. It's a tangled web.

What I'm saying is that this split between natural and supernatural is a part of our world; we cannot so easily write it off to satisfy a few people who feel the supernatural should be included in all of what is reality. But I do sympathize with you.

There are truth's that are knowable through the five senses, and there are truths that require a deeper understanding. It is true that my wife cooks meals, but it is a deeper truth that she loves me.
:) If both are true, they are equally true. Only one kind of truth. The difference I see here is one of significance: the latter truth holds more significance for you.

It wouldn't have to be complete (according to evolutionary expectations, that is--for all we know it could already be virtually complete), just supportive of evolutionary theory. Currently, I don't think it is, based on what I have read.
Okay.

But it is possible for God to make himself known to us. Thus that also becomes a possibility. Does that mean creationism is falsifyable?
That is, I think, the right direction towards demonstrating a falsifyable supernatural: to include the subjective perspective.

But it is possible for God to make himself known to us. Thus that also becomes a possibility. Does that mean creationism is falsifyable?

Technically speaking, even if "God" made himself present, whatever presented itself still may not be God. For if there is a "God", then it is entirely possibly that there are beings which may be able to appear as "God", but not be "God".

Basically: Even if "God" presents himself, it may not be God.

Technically speaking, even if "God" made himself present, whatever presented itself still may not be God. For if there is a "God", then it is entirely possibly that there are beings which may be able to appear as "God", but not be "God".

Basically: Even if "God" presents himself, it may not be God.

Not to mention - given the descriptions attributed to most 'gods' by their believers, or in their 'scriptures'... it would be a theoretical impossibility for any such 'god' to literally be fully manifest in our 'reality' anyway... certainly, in any verifiable, MEASURABLE way.

But it is possible for God to make himself known to us. Thus that also becomes a possibility. Does that mean creationism is falsifyable?
I do see your point, I just had to think about it a bit. I'll answer the question of God being falsifiable first, as the Creation follows from that. It depends on the manner in which you mean that God makes himself known to us.

A falsifiable thing is something that has the potential to be falsified. To do that, it needs to exist (whether known or unknown).

God "makes himself known to us", but that can be a metaphor, a person's way of stating the conclusions that we come to that what we are seeing is evidence of God. Moses, for instance, saw a burning bush, which he interpreted as God, especially as an understanding of what it was "saying" popped into his head simultaneously. God's "making himself known" in that instance is the meaning attributed to the knowledge garnered (perception).

So in this context God exists only subjectively. The understanding of God is inseperable from the experience of God. To anyone standing beside Moses, who only saw a burning bush without words appearing in their head, there would be nothing more there than a burning bush. In this context, objectively there is effectively no god, because everything can be explained within Nature, within the context of cause and effect (and we see this in science, which necessarily looks at things objectively). In this context, God can only be subjectively falsifiable ...and we see evidence of this in people who lose faith.

On the other hand, if you mean God presenting himself in Nature as a part of the contingent universe, then he does indeed possibly exist, and is objectively falsifiable, and also then subject to scientific scrutiny. But then, as Grave points out, how would you know it was God?

I do see your point, I just had to think about it a bit. I'll answer the question of God being falsifiable first, as the Creation follows from that. It depends on the manner in which you mean that God makes himself known to us.

A falsifiable thing is something that has the potential to be falsified. To do that, it needs to exist (whether known or unknown).

It only needs to potentially exist (according to Grave).


God "makes himself known to us", but that can be a metaphor, a person's way of stating the conclusions that we come to that what we are seeing is evidence of God. Moses, for instance, saw a burning bush, which he interpreted as God, especially as an understanding of what it was "saying" popped into his head simultaneously. God's "making himself known" in that instance is the meaning attributed to the knowledge garnered (perception).

While I do understand your point, you have forgotten, it seems, to allow for the possibility that God was present when Moses saw the bush, and that while God spoke from out of the bush, God was not seen by Moses at that point. In fact, it seems that the most Moses ever saw of God was several months later, and then only the back of God.

You have given me your interpretation of the event, but it has not ruled out the possibility that God may indeed exist, and that we are more like mere thoughts in the mind of God (which would make him more 'real' than us), rather than God being a mere thought in the minds of man.


So in this context God exists only subjectively. The understanding of God is inseperable from the experience of God. To anyone standing beside Moses, who only saw a burning bush without words appearing in their head, there would be nothing more there than a burning bush. In this context, objectively there is effectively no god, because everything can be explained within Nature, within the context of cause and effect (and we see this in science, which necessarily looks at things objectively). In this context, God can only be subjectively falsifiable ...and we see evidence of this in people who lose faith.


It is intelligent of you to present God in this context, but that does not follow that there is effectively no god, Willamena.


On the other hand, if you mean God presenting himself in Nature as a part of the contingent universe, then he does indeed possibly exist, and is objectively falsifiable, and also then subject to scientific scrutiny. But then, as Grave points out, how would you know it was God?

For me, God is not part of the universe. But he is capable of entering it, just like Jesus did, and just like He will again one day in the future, according to the Bible. He is capable of demonstrating that he is God. He made us, so he knows we are limited. No problem there. Anyway, I only have to claim that it MAY be possible for God to present himself to us, not even that it is possible, and I have still got my point.

It only needs to potentially exist (according to Grave).


I believe you are constructing strawmen.

IF you are going to cite me, quote me.


For me, God is not part of the universe. But he is capable of entering it, just like Jesus did, and just like He will again one day in the future, according to the Bible. He is capable of demonstrating that he is God. He made us, so he knows we are limited. No problem there. Anyway, I only have to claim that it MAY be possible for God to present himself to us, not even that it is possible, and I have still got my point.

You still don't get it. If 'god' IS 'infinite'... then he can NOT 'enter the universe'.... because that would imply that the infinite (or sub-infinite) extent of reality, would be 'filled' with something equally infinite (or - perhaps, greater THAN the capacity of the universe, if the universe is sub-infinite).

The simple fact that there are already other 'things' IN our 'reality', means that 'God' could never observably be fully 'in' our reality.

Which means, of course, that 'god' would remain 'unfalsifiable'.

It only needs to potentially exist (according to Grave).
That is still existence. Existence need not be actual.

While I do understand your point, you have forgotten, it seems, to allow for the possibility that God was present when Moses saw the bush, and that while God spoke from out of the bush, God was not seen by Moses at that point. In fact, it seems that the most Moses ever saw of God was several months later, and then only the back of God.

You have given me your interpretation of the event, but it has not ruled out the possibility that God may indeed exist, and that we are more like mere thoughts in the mind of God (which would make him more 'real' than us), rather than God being a mere thought in the minds of man.


It is intelligent of you to present God in this context, but that does not follow that there is effectively no god, Willamena.
No, I have given you one interpretation, meant only to represent the subjective side of things. You are correct that the subjective side of things does not rule an actual existence for god. In fact, it says nothing about an actual existence for god. That is the point.

My purpose is not to demonstrate that there is no god, but to show that if god is a subjective thing, it is not objectively falsifiable. It is therefore outside the purview of science.

For me, God is not part of the universe. But he is capable of entering it, just like Jesus did, and just like He will again one day in the future, according to the Bible. He is capable of demonstrating that he is God. He made us, so he knows we are limited. No problem there. Anyway, I only have to claim that it MAY be possible for God to present himself to us, not even that it is possible, and I have still got my point.
If he enters the universe he becomes a natural and actual being. So he certainly is, now, potentially knowable, therefore potentially testable and hence falsifiable, and so is the act of Creation.

But, apart from the problem of how you would test him to see if he is God, or even if he would allow such, there is another problem with that: a God who is no longer supernatural. While God was a subjective phenomenon, while the individual was the only one who could experience him, he was supernatural; there is no way to know if he is actual, imagined or something else, no way to verify it (and it doesn't matter one bit). When he becomes a part of nature, he has actual existence, and so is subject to science. How realistic is that?

Has Bruarong been formally introduced to Tropical Sands yet?