Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, connecting the dots IS science. We have some phenomena. We want to understand them, explain them. We come up with a hypothesis - we connect the dots. We test the hypothesis - does it match the observed phenomena, does it match other phenomena, does it produce results which we can test, does it fit amongst other explanations that we know are valid, and so on. If it seems to work, we use it. We continue to use it until some counter phenomena appears and then we look to adjust it, or try with something else.
When you apply that towards fossils all you are doing is connecting
the dots and calling it science, getting agreements about fossils in
no way means the agreement is correct you cannot 'prove' that wrong
it can only be accepted and rejected. That quite different than what
we do in math or other realms of science.
Kelly
That's science, connecting the dots.
You suggested earlier that physics is okay but studies of fossils are not. Yet they both work under the same process of science that I have described above. In a sense, they are both set on connecting the dots.
So, either both are acceptable, or both are not - you can't pick and choose, simply because one fits with your world view and one doesn't. You may be able to do that with religion but with science you've pretty much got to take it all.
Originally posted by KellyJayRead my post again and you will find that I made no such accusation. Now, are you able to answer the questions or were you just trying to avoid doing so?
Have you seen me say it is true, because "the Bible says so" when
I'm making a point in this discussion, when I want someone to accept
something as true, have I appealed to scripture as an authority wiith
you or someone else here? The only time I think I have used that is
either when I'm discussing scripture, or when someone says, it is true
because we ...[text shortened]... g with
the words and points I am making not the ones you aquire by reading
my mind.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhitehead"Can you give any reasons for such a claim (other than 'the Bible says something else'😉. "
Read my post again and you will find that I made no such accusation. Now, are you able to answer the questions or were you just trying to avoid doing so?
Why bring it up if you are not making an accusation?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayJust trying to make sure you don't waste both our time - something you seem to be doing anyway. Why don't you simply answer the question?
"Can you give any reasons for such a claim (other than 'the Bible says something else'😉. "
Why bring it up if you are not making an accusation?
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadHere is one for you, if you do not want me to not waste your time stop
Just trying to make sure you don't waste both our time - something you seem to be doing anyway. Why don't you simply answer the question?
responding to my posts. That solves all your worries about what I may
say and you having to read my mind instead of reading my posts.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am saying that there are some 'sciences' that are not on par with
Are you claiming that it is not on a par with physics? What other 'sciences' are you throwing in as well? Which 'sciences' are not 'on par' and which aren't?
Can you give any reasons for such a claim (other than 'the Bible says something else'😉.
Don't forget also that you are the first to throw out results in physics if they involve dating something older than you are happy with.
physics yes. Someone who looks at fossils and says this one is related
to that one is only giving an opinion as to what is true and isn't. They
can be agreed with or not, it isn't a matter of if the numbers fit. This
is true with all of man's 'sciences', we have that word applied to so
many different things it isn't even funny.
I never argure when I'm talking about the dating method physics the
numbers if the assumptions are true and the numbers are correct
than that is that, but I do argue that assumptions are made in
coming up with the numbers to use. For example we have talked
about stars and time, there are a lot of assumptions being made
there if true you are spot on, if not getting the math right only means
you got the math right it will just mean reality didn't fit your model.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by darthmixIt is also an idiotic piece of evidence since you are assuming the
I guess I agree with that. The "transitional fossils" rap has always seemed like a semantic error rather than an actual critique of evolutionary theory.
I mean, creationists will say "Well, where are the fossils showing the transition between homo habilis and homo sapiens?" We have those; they're another species, called homo ergaster. "But where a e claiming we don't have fossils showing the transition. It's an idiotic argument.
relationship is as you claim between species too. They could just
simply be another species with nothing to do with any other instead
of the way you are painting them as well. Your starting belief define
what you think you are looking at allowing that to fullfill what you think
is true, therefore anyone who sees it differently than you is wrong.
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionI said one is not on par with the other, and connecting the dots when
Kelly, connecting the dots IS science. We have some phenomena. We want to understand them, explain them. We come up with a hypothesis - we connect the dots. We test the hypothesis - does it match the observed phenomena, does it match other phenomena, does it produce results which we can test, does it fit amongst other explanations that we know are valid, an ...[text shortened]... may be able to do that with religion but with science you've pretty much got to take it all.
it comes to what fossil is related to another is guess work that will
either be agreed with or rejected, but never shown right or wrong.
With physics there is a level of reality that can be demonstrated not
so with fossils, they can show one feature is similar here or there
between creatures, but we can look around today and see creatures
that has similar features that are contemporaries that do not have
the same claims of ancestry being applied to one over the other.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayPlease clarify how what you are talking about does not apply to physics as I don't think you have addressed it. (In fact your last sentence above seems to say that what you are talking about applies to all sciences, physics included).
I am saying that there are some 'sciences' that are not on par with
physics yes. Someone who looks at fossils and says this one is related
to that one is only giving an opinion as to what is true and isn't. They
can be agreed with or not, it isn't a matter of if the numbers fit. This
is true with all of man's 'sciences', we have that word applied to so
many different things it isn't even funny.
I never argure when I'm talking about the dating method physics the
numbers if the assumptions are true and the numbers are correct
than that is that,
but you can of course never know whether or not the assumptions are 'true' so the above statement is meaningless - or at least applies to something that can never ever happen.
but I do argue that assumptions are made in coming up with the numbers to use.
In other words you are OK with mathematics but you don't agree with physics.
For example we have talked about stars and time, there are a lot of assumptions being made there if true you are spot on, if not getting the math right only means you got the math right it will just mean reality didn't fit your model.
Kelly
My issue with that claim, is that you don't appear to be so worried about physicists getting their assumptions wrong when it comes to other things such as nuclear power, aeroplane flight, computers etc. Do you live in fear that your computer may explode at any time because the physicists made a bad assumption?
You still have not really addressed your initial implication that physics is a superior science but rather seem to have trashed it entirely in favor of mathematics.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]I'm of the opinion right or wrong that no matter what I say you are
Please clarify how what you are talking about does not apply to physics as I don't think you have addressed it. (In fact your last sentence above seems to say that what you are talking about applies to all sciences, physics included).
[b]I never argure when I'm talking about the dating method physics the
numbers if the assumptions are true and the num s a superior science but rather seem to have trashed it entirely in favor of mathematics.
going to twist it. Why don't you and I just part knowing we disagree
before we get disagreeable.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are horrendously dumb if you truly believe that.
The number of fossils doesn't change it is opinion not numbers.
Kelly
When you only have a small amount of data then yes, you are truly guessing. When you have copious amounts of data, as we do, then you can be almost certain that any inferences you make are true. You can then collect more data, as we do, to test those inferences.
What data has the church collected on the subject recently?