0

If you care about it.
If you are completely convinced and totally in the boat for it, I suppose you will not have any thing to say against, which will render you a peon of whatever opinions and changes those driving the boat make.

If not one has anything against evolution except some form of prejudice that goes against "religion beliefs" and every one that are against "creationism" uses the "mighty power of evidence" to disassemble religious faith, then this is nothing more that another "God vs no God" thread; regardless how it is phrased.

Do not be insulting.

Yes or no - do you want me to argue against evolution?

Will you argue for evolution?

0

I did reread your post. I'm not arguing for or against the existence of a Creator.

Neither am I. I am simply pointing out it is possible to construct a testable argument for evolution without relying on existence or not of a creator.

Similarly, if the "creationists are right", then point 1 is irrelevant too:

If the Creationists are right, then there IS a Creator, so the second part of the premise about evolution is irrelevant.

That's a self-fulfilling argument though. You can't prove or disprove an argument by assuming that an unproven belief is correct.

Scientific method requires that hypotheses and theories be testable. There is no requirement they be supported by a belief or faith in something that is not testable.

Creationism is a belief or faith, and is not testable: all arguments put forward to make a case for creationism have some element of accepting that the original belief or faith is proven without testing. That is also called the Pygmalian effect.

Interestingly enough, those who point out evidence concerning evolution do not claim it proves or disproves creationism. Only creationists claim that. It is only creationists who argue that a creator would not allow evolution. Again, that belief is not testable.

0

What's all the fuss about god or no god! Evolution or creationism.
We are all chemical reactions! I must admit it is a complex chemical reaction.
What can a chemical reaction say about evolution?
We are by the fact that we are.
We need oxigen and other chemicals!
Stop delivering them so will stop our chemical reaction and we say we die!
Anyone out there ever survived 20 minutes under water? For example.
You can influence your chemical reaction by taking in a simple chemical compound : C2H5OH. Wich proves(no theory! anyone can do this, preferably at home) that you are chemical.

0

Do not be insulting.

Yes or no - do you want me to argue against evolution?

Will you argue for evolution?

You know, my comment was very serious, and not directed to any one in particular. I was almost tented to enter in a discussion with you about it.
For someone that puts so much emphasis in the proper copy and past definition of scientific terminology, it is amusing the choosing of wording when left to your own devises.

Where's the insult? Can you recognize an insult when you read it?
How about this? Your brain is as narrow as a mosquito ass. Nope, it is not an insult to you, the only one with the right to get offended is the mosquito.
Oh, why bother...

0

You give too much weight to what a fact is - a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation. I may have underplayed, but you have overplayed it.

My definition of "fact" came straight from an english-language dictionary. I suppose I can't stop you questioning veracity of a dictionary to support your argument.

Well, yes and no - so let's go with the wiki version: People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis — often called an "educated guess" — because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem.

wiki has it's value, but I would seek independent verification before treating anything there as fact.

The definition of "hypothesis" that I gave is is found in various standard texts on the philosophy or treatises on the scientific method. It is pretty easy to dig out references: there are many such texts, some predating relatively recent religions such as Christianity.

The "educated guess" is one form of hypothesis.

I could, after all, hypothesise that all members here, other than myself, are chimpanzees. It is a hypothesis as it can be used as a premise in any argument, and can be tested on the basis of evidence. An alternative hypothesis is that most members here are not chimpanzees. It is also a hypothesis as it can be used as a premise in any argument, and can be tested on the basis of evidence. The "educated guess" simply suggests that the alternative hypothesis is more likely to be supportable by evidence.

According to Schick and Vaughn,[1] researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:
<more snipped>

Schick and Vaughn are more concerned with encouraging critical thought among people who prefer to think in other manners (ie hands-on). To that end, they use definitions designed to meet their goals and get their message across. Their approach is also experimental, in the sense they encourage use experimental techniques over derivation. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a subset of what is covered by scientific method.

Contrary to what Schick and Vaughn say, the scientific method does not require starting with a hypothesis that is considered more likely to be correct. It is a human preference to structure thought processes and experiments that way (start with a hypothesis that is considered more likely to be true, and test it with evidence). But the scientific method does not require some "educated guess" that is more likely to be correct. Starting with an incorrect hypothesis and assembling evidence of its incorrectness is equally valid.

As a rough indication, a global replacement of "scientific" with "scientific experimental" in their texts would come pretty close to the mark. I'll only respond to a couple of the points you are quoting in your post.

When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.

You might want to check more deeply. Newton suggested philosophical principles and proposed that, under stated various assumptions, they might be considered laws - in the classical sense. The classical definition of "law" is not absolute. The fact that laymen interpret statements of laws as absolute does not change that. However, in common usage, scientific practitioners have therefore moved away from using "law".

0

My definition of "fact" came straight from an english-language dictionary. I suppose I can't stop you questioning veracity of a dictionary to support your argument.

I do not like dictionary definitions in a discussion of science - they lack the nuance and focus needed.

wiki has it's value, but I would seek independent verification before treating anything there as fact.

The definition of "hypothesis" that I gave is is found in various standard texts on the philosophy or treatises on the scientific method. It is pretty easy to dig out references: there are many such texts, some predating relatively recent religions such as Christianity.

I tend to 'Popperian' when I discuss science

The "educated guess" is one form of hypothesis.

Yes, but it would not be a scientific hypothesis.


I could, after all, hypothesise that all members here, other than myself, are chimpanzees. It is a hypothesis as it can be used as a premise in any argument, and can be tested on the basis of evidence. An alternative hypothesis is that most members here are not chimpanzees. It is also a hypothesis as it can be used as a premise in any argument, and can be tested on the basis of evidence. The "educated guess" simply suggests that the alternative hypothesis is more likely to be supportable by evidence.

Schick and Vaughn are more concerned with encouraging critical thought among people who prefer to think in other manners (ie hands-on). To that end, they use definitions designed to meet their goals and get their message across. Their approach is also experimental, in the sense they encourage use experimental techniques over derivation. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a subset of what is covered by scientific method.

Contrary to what Schick and Vaughn say, the scientific method does not require starting with a hypothesis that is considered more likely to be correct. It is a human preference to structure thought processes and experiments that way (start with a hypothesis that is considered more likely to be true, and test it with evidence). But the scientific method does not require some "educated guess" that is more likely to be correct. Starting with an incorrect hypothesis and assembling evidence of its incorrectness is equally valid.

As a rough indication, a global replacement of "scientific" with "scientific experimental" in their texts would come pretty close to the mark. I'll only respond to a couple of the points you are quoting in your post.

Like I said, I follow Popper pretty strictly and do not like this sort of definition in a scientific discussion so I will quote him here:
1. A scientific hypothesis must be testable;
Often the requirement that a scientific hypothesis must be testable is phrased as "a scientific hypothesis must generate predictions". The word "predictions" can often cause confusion, since we commonly think of a prediction as telling about something that is going to happen in the future, like "Next year, Lindsay Lohan will marry a frog." A scientific prediction is not something that is going to happen, but rather something that is happening right now, but no one has ever noticed. In other words, a prediction suggests a test (observation or experiment) for the hypothesis. To say that a hypothesis "generates predictions" means the same thing as saying the hypothesis "is testable".
2. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable;
it is relatively easy to gather evidence for just about any idea, but a hypothesis is essentially worthless unless it is "risky" - it must make predictions that could contradict it. The process of gaining real confidence in a hypothesis, then, is not in accumulating evidence in its favor, but rather in showing that situations that could establish its falsity don't, in fact, happen.

You might want to check more deeply. Newton suggested philosophical principles and proposed that, under stated various assumptions, they might be considered laws - in the classical sense. The classical definition of "law" is not absolute. The fact that laymen interpret statements of laws as absolute does not change that. However, in common usage, scientific practitioners have therefore moved away from using "law".

Thank you for making my point. I read Principia and Principia Mathematica(I thought the second was part of a series - jeez, I kept thinking why didn't Readers Digest condense these) in my youth (I was pretty bored in high school and had already read all 3 encyclopediae in the library) and have no desire to do so again. Newton used 'axiom' and 'law' interchangeably - in other words its truth was taken for granted.

0

You know, my comment was very serious, and not directed to any one in particular. I was almost tented to enter in a discussion with you about it.
For someone that puts so much emphasis in the proper copy and past definition of scientific terminology, it is amusing the choosing of wording when left to your own devises.

Where's the insult? Can you recognize an insult when you read it?
How about this? Your brain is as narrow as a mosquito ass. Nope, it is not an insult to you, the only one with the right to get offended is the mosquito.
Oh, why bother...

Do not be insulting.

Yes or no - do you want me to argue against evolution?

Will you argue for evolution?

0

What's all the fuss about god or no god! Evolution or creationism.
We are all chemical reactions! I must admit it is a complex chemical reaction.
What can a chemical reaction say about evolution?
We are by the fact that we are.
We need oxigen and other chemicals!
Stop delivering them so will stop our chemical reaction and we say we die!
Anyone out there ever survived 20 minutes under water? For example.
You can influence your chemical reaction by taking in a simple chemical compound : C2H5OH. Wich proves(no theory! anyone can do this, preferably at home) that you are chemical.

Hunh? You going to add to the discussion or waste space?

0

Hunh? You going to add to the discussion or waste space?

I could not have said it better myself.

0

I do not like dictionary definitions in a discussion of science - they lack the nuance and focus needed

Only if you insist on imposing your own definitions of what science is. Manipulation of definitions is quite a convenient tool in discrediting competing ideas without having to resort to complete analysis or gathering of evidence.

I tend to 'Popperian' when I discuss science

Well, that explains a lot of your comments (and the material you have typed in from other sources into your posts).

The Popperian approach to philosophy is more a statement of how Popper believes things should be done i.e. he sought to impose a particular methodology, and deemed anything outside his methodology as invalid or non-scientific.

I read Principia and Principia Mathematica(I thought the second was part of a series - jeez, I kept thinking why didn't Readers Digest condense these) in my youth (I was pretty bored in high school and had already read all 3 encyclopediae in the library) and have no desire to do so again. Newton used 'axiom' and 'law' interchangeably - in other words its truth was taken for granted.

In Newton's day, as in classical philosophy, the words axiom and law were interchangeable (both having a root meaning "a rule or principle established through existing evidence"). The meanings have diverged somewhat since then in common language. Popper also, notably, uses them to mean different things.

If you read any authors work, but apply different definitions than that author did, you open yourself up to misunderstand that work. But that is Popper from the top of his head down to the tips of his toenails: his core criticism of the work of other philosophers is that they do not use the methodology (definitions, starting point, approach, etc) he espouses.

In any event, we're drifting off topic with this discussion. It's past time that we let people make their arguments for or against evolution, rather than arguing the nuances of Karl Popper's dogmatic approach to philosophical thought.

0

Interestingly enough, those who point out evidence concerning evolution do not claim it proves or disproves creationism. Only creationists claim that. It is only creationists who argue that a creator would not allow evolution. Again, that belief is not testable.

Gotta disagree with you on that one. steven woodman argues that science disproves Creationism in post 33 and I think many would agree. There are different strains of Creationsim, but certainly if you consider the one positing that the Earth is 6,000 years old, it seems mutually exclusive with the Earth being 4.5 billion years old, carbon dating showing rocks which are millions of years old, a Cambrian explosion millions of years ago, etc. Similarly, evolution seems to directly contradict the story of Noah's Ark. They can't both be true, can they? So it seems to me that if you accept the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old, you can't believe in carbon dating or evolution, and vice versa.

There are also those who think that God created the universe and the Earth billions of years ago and set up the laws of physics and maybe even creates occasional Big Bangs. I can't see any contradiction there.

0

Gotta disagree with you on that one. steven woodman argues that science disproves Creationism in post 33 and I think many would agree. There are different strains of Creationsim, but certainly if you consider the one positing that the Earth is 6,000 years old, it seems mutually exclusive with the Earth being 4.5 billion years old, carbon dating showing rocks which are millions of years old, a Cambrian explosion millions of years ago, etc. Similarly, evolution seems to directly contradict the story of Noah's Ark. They can't both be true, can they? So it seems to me that if you accept the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old, you can't believe in carbon dating or evolution, and vice versa.

There are also those who think that God created the universe and the Earth billions of years ago and set up the laws of physics and maybe even creates occasional Big Bangs. I can't see any contradiction there.

VernonDozier, I am going to use you as a classic example of assumption and ignorance perpetuated by misconception passed down from generations to generations. Don't take it personal, because it is not towards you, it is that you just fit the model of many.

First, you are using the Judean-Christian form of belief to generalize the position of those that subscribe to Creation. When there's thousands of other religion beliefs which subscribe to the concept of Creation.
Second, and most disturbing. Do you know where that number of 6000 years came from?
Do a little investigation and you'll know that it was an ill attempt by some to explain what they didn't know, in an era when it was common for knowledgeable gentlemen to speculate about such things, filling in what could not be found in their Sacred Sources.
It sounded logical at that time and it continued until today, when many think that in order to believe in the Bible they need to adhere to such precepts.

Again VernonDozier, it is not my intention to offend you. Prove that you can take a comment by its face value.

And for those that are more than eager to jump to conclusions quickly, I would like to point that many, if not all of the sciences and disciplines which we rely on, today, so heavily, come from men and woman with a firm belief in God and they tried to prove what they thought as sacred. It is only, today, that a great abyss is preached between belief and science. Even in the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin was careful not to go beyond what he couldn't see. And someone can argue that the book is not even about The Origin of Species, which certainly doesn't say.
I recommend an easy reading book, titled: A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson; if you would like to learn more about how some of these men came to the knowledge that, we take for granted today.

0

VernonDozier, I am going to use you as a classic example of assumption and ignorance perpetuated by misconception passed down from generations to generations. Don't take it personal, because it is not towards you, it is that you just fit the model of many.

First, you are using the Judean-Christian form of belief to generalize the position of those that subscribe to Creation. When there's thousands of other religion beliefs which subscribe to the concept of Creation.
Second, and most disturbing. Do you know where that number of 6000 years came from?
Do a little investigation and you'll know that it was an ill attempt by some to explain what they didn't know, in an era when it was common for knowledgeable gentlemen to speculate about such things, filling in what could not be found in their Sacred Sources.
It sounded logical at that time and it continued until today, when many think that in order to believe in the Bible they need to adhere to such precepts.

Again VernonDozier, it is not my intention to offend you. Prove that you can take a comment by its face value.

And for those that are more than eager to jump to conclusions quickly, I would like to point that many, if not all of the sciences and disciplines which we rely on, today, so heavily, come from men and woman with a firm belief in God and they tried to prove what they thought as sacred. It is only, today, that a great abyss is preached between belief and science. Even in the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin was careful not to go beyond what he couldn't see. And someone can argue that the book is not even about The Origin of Species, which certainly doesn't say.
I recommend an easy reading book, titled: A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson; if you would like to learn more about how some of these men came to the knowledge that, we take for granted today.

No offense taken since I didn't say anything that was ignorant. I think I established the fact that I realize there is more than one theory of Creationism with this line:

There are different strains of Creationsim, but certainly if you consider the one positing that the Earth is 6,000 years old, it seems mutually exclusive with the Earth being 4.5 billion years old

New Earth Creationism believes that the world is 6,000 years old.

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

I don't know what your point is or where you think my flawed thinking is. I never said there was only one form of Creationism. I picked a form of Creationism believed by millions. This strain seems completely incompatible with evolution and carbon dating to me. I don't see how they can both be true.

0

>No offense taken since I didn't say anything that was ignorant

Good that you didn't take offense. However you sure did post a series of question and arguments that have their roots in ignorance as I stated.
As I ask you, do you now how that main stream 6000 year concept came to be?
If you knew, this comment: " This strain seems completely incompatible with evolution and carbon dating to me. I don't see how they can both be true." would have never been formulated.

While I noticed that you mentioned: "There are different strains of Creationsim", as I read it the first time; the origin of all are the same Judea-Christian faith. Nevertheless, even so, you very quickly abandon the reference and go to mention another well known example: Noah's Ark.


>I don't know what your point is or where you think my flawed thinking is

Never said that your thinking was flawed, rather that by asking those questions and introducing those arguments as a base of irreconcilable contradictions, you are manifesting that common misconception stated in my previous post, that many do.

0

>No offense taken since I didn't say anything that was ignorant

As I ask you, do you now how that main stream 6000 year concept came to be?
If you knew, this comment: " This strain seems completely incompatible with evolution and carbon dating to me. I don't see how they can both be true." would have never been formulated.

I imagine the 6000 years concept comes from the Bible somewhere. It's been ages since I've read any part of the Bible, so I haven't the foggiest idea what part of the Bible it comes from. Why does it matter whether I know how the 6000 year concept came to be? I don't see how you can believe that the world is 6000 years old and also believe that the world is over four billion years old at the same time. Yes, those two ideas seem completely incompatible to me. I imagine that if I researched where the 6000 year old Earth idea came from, I'd still find them incompatible.

0

Gotta disagree with you on that one. steven woodman argues that science disproves Creationism in post 33 and I think many would agree.

OK.... I'll concede that there are some who argue that science disproves creationism.

However, if you read most serious published work on the topic, most scientists conclude that the creationism is based on a premise that cannot be subjected to a scientific test. Yes, they duck the question.

0

Pope Benedict told a gathering of scientists including the British cosmologist Stephen Hawking on Friday that there was no contradiction between believing in God and empirical science.

0

you can't believe in carbon dating or evolution

actually carbon dating is rather innacurate

Pope Benedict told a gathering of scientists including the British cosmologist Stephen Hawking on Friday that there was no contradiction between believing in God and empirical science.

dont believe him he was a nazi

0

VernonDozier said:

I imagine the 6000 years concept comes from the Bible somewhere.

where the f*** is from the bible somewhere???
What kind of argumentation is that? I heard it through the grapevine?
I tell you we are all chemical reactions so what the fuck we are bothering about !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (See my previous post)
There can be no devine creature, and who can explain me the evolution of a butterfly?
Egg,caterpillar,pupa,butterfly.
So evolution did not took place as Darwin divised it.
If I say GOD exists there will always be a moron to say me that premise is false.
if I say GOD does not exist there will be another moron to tell me that that premise is false.
So what is the truth?
Why bother?
Let the grass grow! Let the birds sing! Live your life happily, it is to short to bother about this
thread which is interesting but leads us to nowhere...

0

Egg,caterpillar,pupa,butterfly.

thats not evolution, thats growth. The DNA of the creature does not change. It is still the same species.

0

Why bother?
Let the grass grow! [...]

Are you nuts? I am going to make sure I get as much use as I can out of this new lawnmower. After all, it cost a bundle.

thats not evolution, thats growth. The DNA of the creature does not change. It is still the same species.

Metamorphosis, jbennet, metamorphosis.

0

Metamorphosis is the process by which an organisms form or structure develops through cell growth and differentiation but the term does not apply to aspects of normal cell growth, including rapid growth spurts

so i was still correct

0

Live your life happily, it is to short to bother about this
thread which is interesting but leads us to nowhere...

Why are you commenting then?

0

Well VernonDozier, I believe your a very nice guy (or girl) you win. I will stop commenting on this thread. Love to you all.

0

Well VernonDozier, I believe your a very nice guy (or girl) you win. I will stop commenting on this thread. Love to you all.

I'm a guy. You can comment all you want. It just seemed silly to call everyone commenting a moron and then comment yourself.

1

It just seemed silly to call everyone commenting a moron and then comment yourself.

VernonDozier, you are not doing yourself a favor by misinterpreting on purpose other people's comment.
He did not call anyone commenting a moron.
What he said was:

If I say GOD exists there will always be a moron to say me that premise is false.
if I say GOD does not exist there will be another moron to tell me that that premise is false.

Which is much different.

Votes + Comments
Logical
This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.