Do the religious want scientific enquiry to end?

I agree, those are both assumptions of the ToE, but as you said, this is so also because they are the same as science overall. But of course, the ToE rests on other assumptions.When Darwin wrote on the origin of species, what had he actually observe ?
He had observed finch beaks being bigger and smaller from island to island.And what did he extrapolate did from this ? That all the animals on the earth had a common ancestor, and that life could be arranged in a tree of common descent. When you consider what he had actually observed, no doubt does it sound a bit of a stretch to arrive at such a conclusion.So why then, did he arrive at such a conclusion ? It is because he assumed that the little changes he saw could be extrapolated through time as to amount to big changes. Is it 'bad' of him to have done that ? Of course not, it is perfectly legitimate. But you will also notice that it is this assumption that is being rejected by creationist. (Another assumption he made was that the earth was very old, based on Hutton and Lyell's assumption of uniformitrianism)Irony of history, evolution itself became an assumption for another part of science, namely paleontology. The fact of evolution was assumed for every fossil found, although at that time in history evolution was far from the established proven theory it is today. And it's ok, since if it hadn't been that assumption, it would have been another. This is all perfectly legitimate.

If you look at my previous post, you will see that I didn't equate assumptions with wrong.

quote:

---

When Darwin wrote on the origin of species, what had he actually observe ?
He had observed finch beaks being bigger and smaller from island to island.

---

If you truly think that Darwin had nothing to go on besides finch beaks, you are incredibly uninformed. Darwin took 20 years from the end of his voyage on the Beagle before he published On the Origin of Species. During that time, he was gathering vast databases of information about multiple different species from around the globe.But even beyond that, biologists today have information on tens of thousands, perhaps millions, more species than Darwin had. They are able to draw on that information for the basis of their conclusions. And all of the conclusions that biologists have arrived at today is supported by the millions upon millions of observations made since Darwin.Finally, you are simply wrong when you conclude that the fact of evolution was assumed for every fossil found. Fossils were found long before Darwin ever published. In fact, if anything, it was paleontology that first concluded, based on information gathered by paleontologists, that the earth was much older than thought. You actually have it bass ackwards.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This'll be for jazzns also I guess (but I can only reply to one post)Of course, supernovae observations have shed some light on this. But you will agree that when C14 was first used, constant decay rates in the past were an assumption.Supernovae data came afterwards. And of course cary their own assumptions, and creationist will attack these assumptions, not the observations. And of course, they will propose their own assumptions, and interpret the observations accordingly, and evolutionists will atack these assumptions.Assumptions all the way to the bottom, like turtle shells You can't get rid of them, because that's how scientific inquiry work. Like axioms in mathematics I guess.

If you think that there are viable alternative interpretations to the facts at hand (all of the facts) then you should start a thread and offer them up.This "interpretations" game is played a lot and no one, but NO one can ever manage to show another way* of doing it.Good luck.* well they do -- God is a jokester is the end interpretation.

Definitely not nit-picking here, this just reminded me of a passage from A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson:

"... Nor, above all, were his conclusions in any way inspired by his noticing, during his time in the Galapagos Islands, an interesting diversity in the beaks of finches. The story as conventionally told (or, at least, as frequently remembered by many of us) is that Darwin, while travelling from island to island, noticed that each of the finches' beaks were marvellously adapted for exploiting local resources - that on one island beaks were sturdy and short and good for cracking nuts, while on the next island beaks were perhaps long and thin and well suited for winkling food out of crevices - and it was this that set him to thinking that perhaps birds had not been created this way, but had in a sense created themselves.

​

In fact, the birds had created themselves, but it wasn't Darwin who noticed it. At the time of the Beagle voyage, Darwin was fresh out of university and not yet an accomplished naturalist, and so failed to see that the Galapagos birds were all of a type. It was his friend the ornithologist John Gould who realized that what Darwin had found was lots of finches with different talents. Unfortunately, in his inexperience Darwin had not noted which birds came from which islands. (He had made a similar error with tortoises.) It took years to sort the muddles out.

I simply remembered the passage and thought it worth reproducing here.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

I wasn't clear enough then. The finch beak was simply an example. I wans't to start saying every single thing he did observe, since iti would have been way to long. But Overall, his observations are all analog to the clasic textbook example of finch beaks. In other words: Variations among existing species.And of course, fossils had been dug up before Darwin. But they were all reinterpreted in the light of the new 'fact' of evolution when Darwin published. Which of course wasn't close to be a proven fact.

quote:

---

Variations among existing species.

---

That's simply not true, either. Perhaps you need to do a little reading about the information that Darwin had, and about the information that biologists today have, before you start tossing around words like assumptions. It really seems like it's you that's making the assumptions, friend.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Isn't asking this equivalent to comparing creationism and evolutionism as a whole, in one thread ? (since you ask for ALL the facts)I assume the genesis account to be accurate, and this is my primary assumption. Counter-intuitevely though,there is no arguing this. As I can start with any assumption I want.How then can we determine if a given assumption is valid or not ? Well it comes when you start looking at facts, and if those fit with your assumption, you can continue trusting it as to look at other facts, and if it still fits quite nicely, then you continue to trust in your assumption, with each time having more confidence in it. This will end in one of two ways: either you will cover all the facts and so your assumptions is valid up to that point, or your assumption will not be able to take into account a fact, and so it will be falsified.Note that this is right in line with the basis for Karl Popper's falsification citerion. you cannot prove anything, only falsify.

Well of course this isn't the only information biologists today have, and I never said such a thing.But apart from variations among species, what other information did he have ? The fossil record, by his own admission, didn't show evolution at all in his time, so this sure was not information he relied upon.Neither did he directly observe the impacts of natural selection. He deduced it from the variation he saw in species from island to island.The only other observation I guess he could have had was when he saw humans who lived in a non-civilised state, but this only became important in his book 'the descent of man'He also observed some geological sites which he interpreted through uniformitarianism, but this was not foundational to his theory of evolution.

There are only a couple assumptions, everything else is derived from objective evidence and those assumptions.The thing is, even if you grant the assumptions as the basis for both C14 dating and supernova studies, it seems quite miraculous, if you'll excuse the term, that those two assumptions which have nothing to do with one another at first, end up showing the exact same thing. It's almost as if...dare I say it...the assumptions were right. So while Creationists may be able to jump on the "but those are based on assumptions" bandwagon and get some traction, they can't argue they're wrong until they show us their own assumptions that lead to consistent results across multiple disciplines.For example, if we somehow assume that decay rates have changed, how does that effect the dates of specimens we've studied? Once you have those conclusions, what does that say about the supernova measurements? What do those assumptions say about radioactivity halos? You can't make an assumption to "fix" one scientific answer without altering a whole host of other ones. Those other conclusions will rapidly degenerate into conflicting consequences, or at least make it at least as improbable as before that the creationist's beliefs were right.

It seems that besides the very interesting alternative interpretations thread you could start a thread on Darwin's reasoning and facts that allowed him the insight he had.The first one would be one helluva lot of work for you but the 2nd (with only a little prodding) could be work for many others to explore and offer their views and so keep them off your back a bit. I strongly suggest both.

quote:

---

Well of course this isn't the only information biologists today have, and I never said such a thing.

---

Well, I asked you what assumptions the ToE relies on, and you start telling me about Darwin. This kind of implies that you think biology hasn't progressed beyond that stage.

quote:

---

But apart from variations among species, what other information did he have ?

---

Quite honestly, I'm considerably more interested in talking about what assumptions you think evolution relies on now, rather than what assumptions Darwin did or didn't make 150 years ago. What assumptions do you think scientists have to make today to support the ToE?For purposes of your education, assuming you're genuinely interested, you could start with the Wiki entry on Darwin. It gives a thumbnail sketch of the types and amount of evidence he was working with.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

All very good stuff, Perdition, but it is time to take this to other threads, Thanks

Please, thanks.