Message 3 of 235 (646710) 01-06-2012 10:13 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by Anel Vadren 01-06-2012 12:57 AM

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

Message 7 of 235 (646722) 01-06-2012 10:38 AM

Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw 01-06-2012 10:32 AM

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

Message 11 of 235 (646743) 01-06-2012 10:48 AM

Reply to: Message 8 by Panda 01-06-2012 10:40 AM

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

This statement:

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.