- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by XanthosNZHow exactly would you go about testing what the conditions of the universe were like at the time of the big bang?
This post shows exactly how little you know about science. You don't make assumptions that can't be tested if you want to finish with something other than a hypothesis.
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, but science has a fantastic way of telling you how things could not have been.
I agree science isn't about reality and the universe; it is how we view it
which changes over time as we gather new data points. Truth does not
depend on human knowledge, the universe is what it is and as we
define it we simply spin it the way it fits our current set of data points
it is not truth. Science is an ever learning but never coming to
knowle ...[text shortened]... hould be back next year some time, this is my last post for
a while, it has been fun.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am yet to hear of an alternative hypothesis other than a very vague 'God did it but we don't know how.'
So is the existence of remnants of Neanderthal man in the category or testable in your opinion?
I do not base my belief system on the Theory of Evolution or in fact on any scientific theories. No do I accept any scientific theories as fact based on my belief system. Nor do I base my morality on scientific theories.
I consider evolution to be scientifi cept the Biblical account as factual then more than half of science is in conflict with it.
What is the real difference in saying "God did it but we don't know how" and "Evolution did it but we don't know how?"
My college biology professor said exactly that, in essence "We do not yet know how Evolution did this or that. We know Evolution did it. But we have yet to discover how."
Many times I have heard this, that we have yet to know how Ewolution did this or that. What is the diffference between saying that and saying that "We believe that intelligence did this but we have yet to discover how?" or "We believe God did it but we don't know how yet?"
I hope you don't make the assumption that scientists who believe in an intelligent creator have no curiosity to study further about what they don't yet know.
Originally posted by jaywillThe first question postulates an entity for which there is no evidence instigating a process without testable consequences. The second question postulates a process for which there is abundant evidence, where the question is about local mechanisms of selection ond heritability which can be put forth as hypotheses and subsequently tested in various ways.
[b]I am yet to hear of an alternative hypothesis other than a very vague 'God did it but we don't know how.'
What is the real difference in saying "God did it but we don't know how" and "Evolution did it but we don't know how?"
My college biology professor said exactly that, in essence "We do not yet know how Evolution did this or that. We ...[text shortened]... ent creator have no curiosity to study further about what they don't yet know.[/b]
4 edits
Originally posted by bbarrThis is your answer and not twhite's. But I'll respond.
The first question postulates an entity for which there is no evidence instigating a process without testable consequences. The second question postulates a process for which there is abundant evidence, where the question is about local mechanisms of selection ond heritability which can be put forth as hypotheses and subsequently tested in various ways.
In the first sentence did you mean to write this:
"The first question postulates an entity for which there is no evidence instigating a process [WITH] testable consequences." ?
Seems to make more sense to me that way.
Was "without" meant to be "with"?
The second question postulates a process for which there is abundant evidence,
I think if we stop right there I have to ask what is meant by the term Evolution. If you just mean "Change" then that is one matter. If you mean something considerably more than simply change, it is immediately an issue if we do have "abundant evidence".
For example: Fossils in the earth for now non-existent animals is evidence that there once were some animals which now no longer exist.
Whether that is "abundant evidence" for a process of Evolution if one means that over a long period of millions of years ever minute changes in these animals resulted in the animals we see today, is another matter.
Abundant evidence for now extinct animals is not necessarily "abundant evidence" for gradualism accomplishing the transformation of macro evolution. At best at this time we might offer the fossil record as scant and questionable evidence for the latter postulate.
And the testableness of a process requiring several million years also has its problems I think.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillYou really are a loon, aren't you?
This is your answer and not twhite's. But I'll respond.
In the first sentence did you mean to write this:
[b]"The first question postulates an entity for which there is no evidence instigating a process [WITH] testable consequences." ?
Seems to make more sense to me that way.
Was "without" meant to be "with"?
The second ness of a process requiring several million years also has its problems I think.
What? You now think you can put God in a test tube and run him through a mass spec? Of course God is not testable. Okay, you want a test for God? How about explaining the blind spot in eyes. An omnipotent creator could do far better than that. What about MRSA? Surely, an omnipotent creator could do better than that. What about cancer? Surely an omnipotent creator could do better than that! What about tooth decay? What part of your creators master plan is that? What about malaria? What about renal failure? What about our crap (compared to, say, dogs) sense of smell? Why can't we breathe underwater? What about old age? Why can't we see IR? All these things have perfectly testable evolutionary hypotheses attached. I challenge you to explain JUST ONE.
Your second non-point. Of course! We have always said that evolution is the build up of small changes over long periods of time. Creationists are the ultimate saltationist! Pray tell, explain why God apparently "got it wrong" and had to wipe all the dinosaurs out?!
3 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou're jumping to conclusions. Besides, you didn't answer the question but played tag team tactics.
You really are a loon, aren't you?
What? You now think you can put God in a test tube and run him through a mass spec? Of course God is not testable. Okay, you want a test for God? How about explaining the blind spot in eyes. An omnipotent creator could do far better than that. What about MRSA? Surely, an omnipotent creator could do better tha ray tell, explain why God apparently "got it wrong" and had to wipe all the dinosaurs out?!
I did not say anything about subjecting the existence of God to laboratory tests.
I posed problems to the extent of the definition of Evolution. In some senses of the meaning of the word there is a problem with verifiable testing.
AS for the wiping out of dinosaurs. Do not blame me if over the last 60 years science theory has inched closed to what the Bible says in Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was waste and void ..."
Is has long been held before the invention of both geology and evolutionary theory, by some readers of ancient Hebrew, that Genesis is saying that a previous world was wiped out !!
I notice that in some quarters of science catatrophism - killer comets, killer gas, killer volcanoes, etc. are hopothesized as culprits to have wiped out previous species of animals. Why did all these animals die off so suddenly, is a big question in science.
So I have noticed that catatrophy theories have seemed to inch science theory a bit closer to what I also understand Genesis to be saying. That is after some unspecified interval of time a previous world was rendered waste and void.
Now, that God wiped it out, may be true. That He did so because "He got it wrong" is your interpretation. He could have wiped it out because the leaders of that world "got it wrong".
At any rate I did not offer a total contradiction of bbar's reply. I did not say I totally disagreed with him actually. I am still thinking about it. I did point out some problems with what is meant by "abundant evidence for Evolution" so to speak, ie. what is meant by Evolution. And I did also mention the problem with the proported testability of a process which requires several millions of years to unfold.
That too is difficult to put into a test tube.
Last of all though the existence of God may not be in the realm of laboratory experiment, that God cannot be tested is nonsense.
History is filled with occasions where people stepped out on the promises claimed to be of God and tested those words. And the results often, if not always, indicated that it was likely that the receiver of the promise was on the right track.
I am not a loon. And you are not as sharp as you fancy yourself to be.
Originally posted by jaywillRe science catastophism;
You're jumping to conclusions. Besides, you didn't answer the question but played tag team tactics.
I did not say anything about subjecting the existence of God to laboratory tests.
I posed problems to the extent of the definition of Evolution. In some senses of the meaning of the word there is a problem with verifiable testing.
AS for the ...[text shortened]... ht track.
I am not a loon. And you are not as sharp as you fancy yourself to be.
Well, we typically have a reason for thinking there was some catastrophe. For example, in rock strata from around 65 million years ago there is a layer of the element iridium. Iridium is exceptionally uncommon on earth, but common on meteorites etc. Therefore, considering the layer is global (indicating it hit the earth hard), and the fact that there are dinosaur skeletons on one side of the band, but not the other, it would seem logical to hypothesize that a meteor strike was in some way connected to events. Quite what it's effects were are still under debate.
You say that Gen 1.2 says that "the earth was waste and void". Well, perhaps that's so (actually the KJV says "formless and empty"😉. However, taking Genesis in context reveals that the text refers to the very beginning of creation before anything, dinosaurs included, ever existed. Another case of you trying to misrepresent the truth.
You seriously believe that (a) God is omnipotent, and (b) God requires to go back and fix things? You have bigger problems than dinosaurs mate.
Oh, and I don't have to be as sharp as I think I am (actually I'm quite modest, but don't suffer fools gladly) - I just have to be sharper than you.
Okay, let's just clarify the evolutionary position.
Evolution has four key areas of evidence:
1. the fossil record
2. anatomical and biochemical similarities between different (but possible related) species
3. geographic distribution of related species
4. genetic analysis of species change over many generations
But wait, that's not all!
Evolution, like any scientific theory or model doesn't quote the evidence and then rest.
Evolution is a model than allows for predictions to be made and tested.
We can formulate a hypothesis about why there might be certain features in an existing species - say the blind spot in the eye, or the smelling ability of dogs (tip of the hat to scottish there). We can compare this hypothesis with the evidence we have in relation to the 4 points noted above.
For example, if dogs can smell really well, what about similar species to them - do we see the same sense of smell? Are there anatomical or biochemical signs that might help to develop our understanding of this? Do we see these signs in the fossil record of related species?
Now of course, all of this hinges on the notion that we accept that there are in fact related species. (Well, trivially of course, if we accept evolution then we're all related - but I think you can get what I mean.)
The anti-evlutionists might call it circular reasoning, but on the contrary it's simply reasoning from within the viewpoint of the existing model.
And if our reasoning leads to postulations that are not supported by evidence then we have to try again.
If enough discrepancies crept in then we might have relinquish evolution to the bag of old dud theories.
Which we'd do - with a lot of cringing and dumping of many books - because that's how science works. If it's no good, dump it.
But it's still here!
Maybe there is a set of steak knives in this evolution thing after all ...
I would just like to say there is no such thing as an "Evolutionist". That would imply that evolution is a belief system. Science as a whole is more analogous to religion than just evolution. Both are ways to interpret the world, but science is a way at looking at the world objectively, religion is a highly subjective way of looking at it. I'm not sure but I think that is why they are always at odds.
I have dedicated a good deal of my time at school studying Evolution and have not found one reason not to doubt evolution. I have also studied religion quite a bit and have not found any reason to dismiss anyone else's personal beliefs.
I have a challenge for theists and non-theists.
If you do not believe in God or the creation: Read the Bible and some biblical commentaries. They are very interesting. Honestly. You may learn something.
If you doubt evolution, Pick up a few books by some world renounced Evolutionary biologists. These texts are not "Bible Replacements" they are just reviewing research of hundreds and thousands of scientist from around the world. They are not out to fool anyone.
Originally posted by spandrelsScience is not really analogous to religion. A "Scientist" is not someone who believes in science as a faith but rather someone who follows certain standards and practices when studying and investigating.
I would just like to say there is no such thing as an "Evolutionist". That would imply that evolution is a belief system. Science as a whole is more analogous to religion than just evolution.
Both are ways to interpret the world, but science is a way at looking at the world objectively, religion is a highly subjective way of looking at it. I'm not sure but I think that is why they are always at odds.
I would not call religion 'a way to look at the world' but rather it is a way of avoiding the world. A form of escapism.
I have dedicated a good deal of my time at school studying Evolution and have not found one reason not to doubt evolution. I have also studied religion quite a bit and have not found any reason to dismiss anyone else's personal beliefs.
I on the other hand find many reasons to dismiss many other peoples personal beliefs. Surely you dismiss some peoples personal beliefs, such as those who believe the world is flat?
I have a challenge for theists and non-theists.
If you do not believe in God or the creation: Read the Bible and some biblical commentaries. They are very interesting. Honestly. You may learn something.
I have done some of that and honestly I found "Lord of the Rings" far more entertaining. If you were implying that they have a convincing argument for their claims then I am yet to see that particular commentary or Bible passage.