Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2014 2:22 PM
77 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Upcoming Birthdays: purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,201 Year: 24,042/28,606 Month: 1,343/1,786 Week: 205/423 Day: 42/73 Hour: 0/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Question Evolution!
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 3 of 235 (646710)
01-06-2012 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Anel Vadren
01-06-2012 12:57 AM


Really?

This is obviously a hit and run, and we'll end up talking to ourselves with no further input from little Jimmy.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Anel Vadren, posted 01-06-2012 12:57 AM Anel Vadren has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 01-06-2012 10:32 AM subbie has responded
 Message 8 by Panda, posted 01-06-2012 10:40 AM subbie has responded
 Message 101 by Anel Vadren, posted 01-07-2012 7:54 PM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 7 of 235 (646722)
01-06-2012 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
01-06-2012 10:32 AM


Re: OK OP
No it isn't.

It's another opportunity for the science side to show why creos are wrong and creos to ignore what science says.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 01-06-2012 10:32 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 01-06-2012 10:47 AM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 11 of 235 (646743)
01-06-2012 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Panda
01-06-2012 10:40 AM


6 answers
This is a perfect opportunity for our resident creos to prove me wrong.

For anyone who disagrees with Panda's comprehensive answers to the 6 questions he's chosen, give evidence to support your position. I don't think I'm asking for much. Just evidence. If you actually believe there are "living fossils" that haven't changed in hundreds of millions of years, identify them. If you actually believe that science teaches that blind chemistry created mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality, provide citations and/or quotations of scientific papers advocating these beliefs.

Keep in mind, the key word here is evidence. Not rambling screeds. Not opinions based on last week's sermon. Evidence.

If you can't understand the difference, you can't even begin to intelligently discuss anything to do with science. Here's your chance to pony up.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Panda, posted 01-06-2012 10:40 AM Panda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 01-06-2012 10:54 AM subbie has responded
 Message 36 by foreveryoung, posted 01-06-2012 6:20 PM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 12 of 235 (646744)
01-06-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by mike the wiz
01-06-2012 10:47 AM


Re: OK OP
Is evolution a pseudo-science? Might be a better topic?

Wonderful. I'd be delighted to explore that with you for a while.

What are the characteristics that you generally look for to determine whether something is pseudo-science? I'm not asking you why you think the ToE is, I'm asking for an abstract list that we can use to evaluate any random field of inquiry.

Conversely, what do you see as the defining characteristics of science?

Please, take your time putting together answers to these two questions. I'm in no rush.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 01-06-2012 10:47 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 01-06-2012 10:58 AM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 35 of 235 (646837)
01-06-2012 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
01-06-2012 10:58 AM


Historical science, experimenting
Very busy today, so will respond a bit at a time.

Problems arise between operational science and historical science, respectively, in that you can repeat and experiment with the latter, but the former is limited.

This is a distinction that only creos recognize. In real science, there's no such thing as operational science and historical science.

Furthermore, whether you can experiment with something or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether the inquiry is scientific. We can't experiment with the universe, but astronomy is still a science. We can't experiment with the Earth and reproduce ice ages, but geology is still a science.

Experimenting is nothing more than one particular way to gather evidence. It is perhaps the most controllable method, but that is irrelevant. Science is a process of gathering evidence, forming hypotheses, testing those hypotheses against more evidence and forming conclusions based on the testing. It makes no difference how that evidence is gathered.

Edited by subbie, : Subtitle


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 01-06-2012 10:58 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 37 of 235 (646839)
01-06-2012 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by foreveryoung
01-06-2012 6:20 PM


Pseudogenes
Please give concrete examples.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by foreveryoung, posted 01-06-2012 6:20 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 40 of 235 (646856)
01-06-2012 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mike the wiz
01-06-2012 10:54 AM


The tentativity of science
I would add, what is evidence? Logically speaking?

It is the consequent in a modus ponen. The antecedant is represented as the theory or postulation. The falsification evidence is the modus tollens rejection of the consequent.

As far as I am aware, there is an ignorance of evolution by lot of creationists, and what it says, but there is also an ignorance of what evidence is. Whether it is qualitative or quantative.

An induction of confirmation evidence is inductive reasoning because unless you own 100% of the evidence, epistemologically and logically speaking, you can not know or deduce respectively, you can only proceed via abductive inference. According to your JTB, justified-true belief, you can justifiably believe evolution happened, depending upon how compelling your evidence is.

But to discuss the actual evidence is something as a creationist, I can no longer do.

I tried, several times, to explain what evidence is, and how complicated the logical variables are, I can't be a punch-bag for evolutionists forever.

If, by all of that, you meant to say that conclusions of science are not provable because we can never know what all of the evidence shows, you are 100% correct about that. Everyone on the ToE side here would agree with that. Every scientist would agree with that. Science is tentative. One should imagine that every single conclusion that any scientist ever came to, and that any scientist ever will come to, ends with an asterisk linking to a disclaimer that reads, "This is the best explanation we have to date based on the evidence available to date. This conclusion is subject to change if someone comes up with a better explanation or if more evidence comes to light."

Or did I just horribly misunderstand the point you were making?

Edited by subbie, : Subtitle


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 01-06-2012 10:54 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 7:33 AM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


(3)
Message 58 of 235 (646934)
01-07-2012 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 7:33 AM


Law versus theory
I am trying, conciously, to learn more about it,....

I shall take you at your word and see where it takes us.

I would define the following like this, perhaps examples are better than my attempts to explain it;

Law:

100% of the recorded induction is always confirming evidence.

Theory:

NOT 100% of the recorded induction is always confirming evidence.

Your misapprehension is a common one. Many people seem to think that there's some hierarchy of reliability, with LAW at the top and the lowly theory trying desperately to reach that lofty height. This is decidedly not how these words are used in science.

Let's start with these definitions, courtesy of the NCSE:

quote:
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.


A law generally describes one phenomenon or aspect of the real world. A theory generally encompasses a large number of different explanations into a more comprehensive understanding.

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it.

You are of course free to use your own definitions, but if you do you need to be aware that you are saying things quite different from what scientists say when they use those words. Thus, if your understanding of what scientists mean by the Theory of Evolution is that it is contradicted by some empirical evidence, this is almost the exact opposite of what they mean.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 7:33 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-07-2012 11:33 AM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 61 of 235 (646938)
01-07-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Tanypteryx
01-07-2012 11:33 AM


Re: Law versus theory
Sure, as long as you keep the Python in there.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-07-2012 11:33 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 67 of 235 (646978)
01-07-2012 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 3:51 PM


Science and logic
As near as I can tell, you seem to be making the same basic argument that I presented in my thread The scientific method is based on a logical fallacy. That thread began with a fairly interesting discussion of the topic, then veered off into something unrelated. But the point is that science is not deductively valid. In other words, even when confirming evidence is found supporting a theory, it's still possible for the theory to be incorrect. This is a big part of the reason that all of science is considered tentative. It's also a big part of the reason why a theory doesn't become a theory until it has been thoroughly tested. Part of the testing process is looking for alternative explanations for the conclusions the theory has come to.

The important point to remember is that this is true for all of science. Every single scientific theory, law, and hypothesis. You cannot criticize the ToE on this basis without bringing down all of science. They stand or fall together on this point.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 3:51 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 69 of 235 (646980)
01-07-2012 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 4:21 PM


Re: The tentativity of science
If all of the available evidence supported evolutio, you would be making a LAW of evolution.

No. You still do not understand the difference between a law and a theory. A theory does not become a law when all evidence supports it. Laws and theories are completely different animals and do completely different things. Theodoric explained it very well in his Message 62.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 4:21 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 01-07-2012 4:39 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 74 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 4:42 PM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 77 of 235 (646989)
01-07-2012 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 4:33 PM


I would encourage you to step back, think about the things we are saying, and perhaps even do some of your own research.

Most of us have spent years, even decades, studying and thinking about these things. It's not reasonable to expect that you would understand them in an afternoon, particularly if it's not an area that you have a lot of experience in. There are a lot of misconceptions floating around about science and how it works, and probably the first step is to unlearn those wrong ideas.

I'm not sure you really understand the difference between a law and a theory. There's no rush here. This forum has been here for almost a decade and we're not in a hurry. The premium is placed on accurate, not fast. So take some time, this thread will always be here.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 4:33 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 5:04 PM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 81 of 235 (646993)
01-07-2012 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 5:04 PM


Now look, you've broken mike, as Dan Carroll used to say.

In the immortal words of Sheldon Cooper, "There, there."

If it makes any difference to you, it seems to me that you are being less dogmatic and more inquisitive in this thread than you have seemed in the past. And I would like you to notice that I haven't jeered a single message in this thread.

So there.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 5:04 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 5:18 PM subbie has responded
 Message 87 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 5:24 PM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 85 of 235 (646998)
01-07-2012 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 4:42 PM


Re: The tentativity of science
I did not state that a theory becomes a law, I was only highlighting one element, one difference.

If I am wrong, then taking a leap off a building would one day break the law of gravity. With a law, you can't have a falsification evidence such as that, all know examples are consistent with gravity, in that sense.

You are looking too deeply into a simple statement I made. It was only a musing, I am not arguing with any information you provide of the differences between law and theory.

This statement:

If all of the available evidence supported evolutio, you would be making a LAW of evolution.

shows that you don't understand. All available evidence does support the theory of evolution. (I know you don't yet agree with this, so let's not get bogged down with that right now.) But the theory of evolution isn't a law. It will never be a law. It will always be a theory. The difference between a law and a theory has absolutely nothing to do with the quantum or quality of evidence supporting either one. They are completely different types of explanations of our observations of the natural world.

I don't mean to keep harping on this, but it's important that you understand this distinction. Without this understanding, it's impossible to progress in any meaningful conversation.

No hurry for you to reply, get back whenever.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 4:42 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 86 of 235 (646999)
01-07-2012 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 5:18 PM


Nope, nothing to do with restraint. It's entirely a factor of your posts here not being jeerworthy, IMHO.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 5:18 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014