What's wrong with evolution?

Originally posted by amannion
This is getting boring and will probably be my last post.
We're arguing past each other and I don't really see any way around this.

No one really answered my original question which was basically, what is the big problem with evolution? Oh, I know it's 'only' a theory and all that, but in the end, why does it matter so much?
It's useful for scientists ...[text shortened]... all the thoughts from everyone.
I think I'll just go out the back now and shoot myself.

You should be pleased to have provided us all with hours of endless fun.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
I witness the changes through the evidence that the creatures left behind.

Just like the ancient Romans, I never met one or even saw one in the distance but in the face of overwhelming evidence from archaeology and history I know they existed. It is not a matter of faith. The evidence is such that ancient Rome was an undeniable reality.

I'm sure you see the analogy (but will deny its reality)

We have records of Romans; we have their works, their writings,
their descendents who by the way can talk. What is different about
them and the fossils record is that, all a fossil record is, is just a
fossil. Your knowledge about the fossils is not the same thing as
looking at the recent past of the Roman empire. With fossils
someone is just putting together what they think the fossil was,
when it existed, what it looked like, and so on.
Kelly

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
You should be pleased to have provided us all with hours of endless fun.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed myself thoroughly, and I'm glad you have too. But it's all starting to sound pretty much the same, don't you think?

Originally posted by KellyJay
We have records of Romans; we have their works, their writings,
their descendents who by the way can talk. What is different about
them and the fossils record is that, all a fossil record is, is just a
fossil. Your knowledge about the fossils is not the same thing as
looking at the recent past of the Roman empire. With fossils
someone is just putting together what they think the fossil was,
when it existed, what it looked like, and so on.
Kelly

Prezactly. We have evidence of Romans. I know fossils are not the same, but they are eveidence too. The history of Rome is open to interpretation, I live in a city where people have made careers out of interpreting the classics.

When all is said and done, we have evidence and interpretation of evidence, just like with the fossils

Originally posted by KellyJay
We have records of Romans; we have their works, their writings,
their descendents who by the way can talk. What is different about
them and the fossils record is that, all a fossil record is, is just a
fossil. Your knowledge about the fossils is not the same thing as
looking at the recent past of the Roman empire. With fossils
someone is just putting together what they think the fossil was,
when it existed, what it looked like, and so on.
Kelly

Okay, I know I said I wasn't going to post anymore, but it's like an addiction, I can't help myself.

Kelly, I was thinking about your post just now and it struck me that the sort of 'putting together' of fossil stuff that you reject, is exactly what historians do when analysing and describing history.
You're right, we do have documents and old buildings and so on, but these are the fossils of history. Interpreting these things to determine what actually went on in the past, is as difficult as analysing fossils. And generates as many alternatives too.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Prezactly. We have evidence of Romans. I know fossils are not the same, but they are eveidence too. The history of Rome is open to interpretation, I live in a city where people have made careers out of interpreting the classics.

When all is said and done, we have evidence and interpretation of evidence, just like with the fossils

Exactly. There's always a jump going from evidence to the model of what happened in the past. For KJ though, sometimes that jump is "faith", and sometimes it's not. I don't understand his perspective at all. It seems so inconsistent.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Prezactly. We have evidence of Romans. I know fossils are not the same, but they are eveidence too. The history of Rome is open to interpretation, I live in a city where people have made careers out of interpreting the classics.

When all is said and done, we have evidence and interpretation of evidence, just like with the fossils

There is a difference between the evidence of the Romans and the
fossils, the Romans actually come with dates and names, the
fossils we attempt to ascertain what those are by our best methods!
Our best methods that I must add cannot be proven wrong, only
argued about! What we know about the Romans is a good deal
more than we know about the fossils, but what we think is true
about the fossils is a fact to some no matter what is believed.
Kelly

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Exactly. There's always a jump going from evidence to the model of what happened in the past. For KJ though, sometimes that jump is "faith", and sometimes it's not. I don't understand his perspective at all. It seems so inconsistent.

You can say it is faith to be walking across the yard, you believe
the earth isn't going to open up while you do it, and more times
than not you will be right. As I have discovered once in Alaska
that isn't always true; sink holes can reward you for a good faith
action too when you are just walking across the ground. You can
take a reading with a multi-meter to get a voltage drop, at some
level you are acting on faith by trusting the reading of the
multi-meter as well. The level of faith or trust is simply different
than that of someone telling you that ‘X’ is true no matter what
‘X’ is, if you cannot prove ‘X’ right or wrong. If you cannot be
proven wrong you can make a lot of claims, and if it is half way
believable people might buy whatever it is you are saying. The
difference is can you know for certain, can you verify, or are
you just making claims?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can say it is faith to be walking across the yard, you believe
the earth isn't going to open up while you do it, and more times
than not you will be right. As I have discovered once in Alaska
that isn't always true; sink holes can reward you for a good faith
action too when you are just walking across the ground. You can
take a reading with a multi ...[text shortened]... difference is can you know for certain, can you verify, or are
you just making claims?
Kelly

Our fossil dating methods, like all scientific results and models CAN be proven wrong. That's what makes them scientific. Now, no one with any serious connection with or understanding of science believes that fossil dating methods ARE wrong, but it's possible to imagine data that would cause a rethink of this.
It would be devastating to many fields of science - palaeontology, archaeology, nuclear physics, and so on - but we'd regroup, try again, and move on.
Likewise with evolution if it were proved false.
Science and scientific models are not some bedrock axiom which we can never dispute. It doesn't work that way.
But an accepted theory or piece of data is assumed to be true if it satisifies existing evidence, predicts useful and accurate results, and is not supplanted by anything better.

Originally posted by amannion
Our fossil dating methods, like all scientific results and models CAN be proven wrong. That's what makes them scientific. Now, no one with any serious connection with or understanding of science believes that fossil dating methods ARE wrong, but it's possible to imagine data that would cause a rethink of this.
It would be devastating to many fields of scie ...[text shortened]... ng evidence, predicts useful and accurate results, and is not supplanted by anything better.

Our fossil dating methods can be proven wrong? Really, how with
another fossil dating method that is believed to be better than
the current ones? Do you believe the current methods to be true
because they say what you believe to be true only? If they are
far from being true and you get another reading that shows dates
to be either much greater or less than what is currently believed,
could you readily accept the new readings?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Our fossil dating methods can be proven wrong? Really, how with
another fossil dating method that is [b]believed to be better than
the current ones? Do you believe the current methods to be true
because they say what you believe to be true only? If they are
far from being true and you get another reading that shows dates
to be either much greater or less than what is currently believed,
could you readily accept the new readings?
Kelly[/b]

You really don't know the degree of certainty that radiometric testing methods have obtained and because of your lack of knowlege you make it seem like you think science is basing it's conclusions on a nebulous "faith". No matter what you do or say, this fact remains: Science is more suited for studying the evolution of life on this planet than your book of jewish history ever was.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Our fossil dating methods can be proven wrong? Really, how with
another fossil dating method that is [b]believed to be better than
the current ones? Do you believe the current methods to be true
because they say what you believe to be true only? If they are
far from being true and you get another reading that shows dates
to be either much greater or less than what is currently believed,
could you readily accept the new readings?
Kelly[/b]

Any scientific model can be proven wrong with the discovery of evidence that is not predicted by that model.

Here's an example:
We use heliocentric model for understanding the relationship between the sun and the planets. We make predictions from this model - such as the position of the planets at specific times. If a prediction is made that is not supported by observational evidence then the possibility exists that the model is wrong.

How might fossil dating methods be proven wrong?
An example might be the inconsistent dating of two fossils from the same rock strata - and by inconsistent I mean outside the error limits of that particular dating method. That in and of itself would not be sufficient to disprove fossil dating of course - we'd want to check it and recheck it, and maybe find other similar inconsistencies - but it might eventually force a redevelopment of dating methods to match the new data.

As for your insistence on science as a belief system?
I believe it to be true because it's developed through a system of trial and error built up with model after model. It works.
It's contingent though - there might be something that works better.
Scientists are always after better explanations.
I've yet to hear you put up one.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Our fossil dating methods can be proven wrong? Really, how with
another fossil dating method that is [b]believed to be better than
the current ones? Do you believe the current methods to be true
because they say what you believe to be true only? If they are
far from being true and you get another reading that shows dates
to be either much greater or less than what is currently believed,
could you readily accept the new readings?
Kelly[/b]

If you want to prove dating methods wrong all you have to do is measure a single sample multiple times by multiple methods. if the answers are consistant and convergant then the method is true and stable, if the answers generated are random and divergent (between samples AND methods) then the method cannot be said to be reliable.

Easy, huh.

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is a difference between the evidence of the Romans and the
fossils, the Romans actually come with dates and names, the
fossils we attempt to ascertain what those are by our best methods!
Our best methods that I must add cannot be proven wrong, only
argued about! What we know about the Romans is a good deal
more than we know about the fossils, but ...[text shortened]... we [b]think is true
about the fossils is a fact to some no matter what is believed.
Kelly[/b]

So can you point me to original evidence, written at the time, that confirms Emperor Julius Ceasar invaded Britain in 33 BC?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can say it is faith to be walking across the yard, you believe
the earth isn't going to open up while you do it, and more times
than not you will be right. As I have discovered once in Alaska
that isn't always true; sink holes can reward you for a good faith
action too when you are just walking across the ground. You can
take a reading with a multi ...[text shortened]... difference is can you know for certain, can you verify, or are
you just making claims?
Kelly

Fact and faith are really all about statistics. That is why we use Occams Razor.
If I toss a coin 5 times and it comes up heads each time then we can hypothesize that it is a two headed coin.
If after 200 times it is still coming up heads then we call it a Theory that it is a two headed coin.
After 10,000 tosses most people will accept it as fact. Is this faith to accept that it is a two headed coin? I would rather use the word faith when you choose to consider as fact something that is not supported by statisitics for example if you are still convinced after 10,000 tosses that the coin has a tails side.
I see no real statistical difference between the evidence for the Romans existance and the evidence for Dinosoars existance. To me they are both facts. The problem with faith is it allows you to deny that the coin was tossed correctly because you can see that that would conflict with your two sided coin theory and try to find other explanations for example devine intervention in the tossing process.