Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 127 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2017 12:37 PM
381 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, edge, JonF, NoNukes, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq (10 members, 371 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,334 Year: 18,940/21,208 Month: 1,699/3,111 Week: 494/707 Day: 70/120 Hour: 1/15

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   Embarrassed Creationist
jar
Member
Posts: 29137
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 16 of 69 (188467)
02-25-2005 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Vercingetorix
02-25-2005 9:52 AM


As a Christian Evolutionist
I really need to correct a couple points you've made and also give you a tip.

TIP. When you read this, click on the button marked PEEK and you'll see how I created the effects.

I think that Science and the scietific method are both part of the Positivist Philosophy, and there fore trying to PROVE!

You're wrong there. Science actually holds theories to be tentative. They are not proven, unlike proofs in the field of mathematics. Evolution, that things did change may well be a fact, but the Theory of Evolution, like the Theory of Relativity, is held only tentatively. They are both subject to change as more evidence is gathered.

look i think that creationism is the least likely scenario, but if i am true to my scientific roots, TOE is more likely, but until proven, still wrong.

If you said tentative instead of wrong you'd be right on.

FAITH, has no place in SCIENCE!

Correct.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-25-2005 9:52 AM Vercingetorix has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-25-2005 10:33 AM jar has responded

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 17 of 69 (188472)
02-25-2005 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
02-25-2005 10:04 AM


Re: As a Christian Evolutionist
thank you for your help :)

Main Entry: tentative
Pronunciation: 'ten-t&-tiv
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin tentativus, from Latin tentatus, past participle of tentare, temptare to feel, try
1 : not fully worked out or developed
2 : HESITANT, UNCERTAIN
- tentative noun
- tentatively adverb
- tentativeness noun

^^^^from webster dictionary

so you are certainly uncertain about evolution and relativity?
that doesn't sound very scientific to me.

If you said tentative instead of wrong you'd be right on.

well I agree that TOE is tentative. it is very uncertain, and a faith call and since you agree that FAITH has no place in SCIENCE, how can you take that leap (of faith) for TOE?
because I cannot.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 02-25-2005 10:04 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 02-25-2005 10:49 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 02-25-2005 11:13 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 02-25-2005 11:27 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Loudmouth, posted 02-25-2005 12:59 PM Vercingetorix has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29137
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 18 of 69 (188474)
02-25-2005 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Vercingetorix
02-25-2005 10:33 AM


Re: As a Christian Evolutionist
so you are certainly uncertain about evolution and relativity?
that doesn't sound very scientific to me.

I am VERY certain about Evolution. It's a fact. I know for a fact that the Biblical Creation stories are incorrect. Those are facts.

Now we get to Theory. Right now the best explanation we have for the factual evidence that's there are the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Relativity (as modified in some cases under GR). But those are still held tentatively. Look at the first definition you posted.

Main Entry: tentative
Pronunciation: 'ten-t&-tiv
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin tentativus, from Latin tentatus, past participle of tentare, temptare to feel, try
1 : not fully worked out or developed

Not fully worked out or developed. We are constantly modifying scientific theory as more is learned. There is much more yet to be learned about both the TOE and the relationship of forces that govern this universe.

well I agree that TOE is tentative. it is very uncertain, and a faith call and since you agree that FAITH has no place in SCIENCE, how can you take that leap (of faith) for TOE?
because I cannot.

No faith is required. Instead, the TOE is the best explanation available, as you said, based on the evidence. If, in the future something is discovered that falsifies the TOE then either the theory will change or a new theory will replace it. I do know for a fact that it will NOT be the creation tales from Genesis. They have already been falsified.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-25-2005 10:33 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8788
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 19 of 69 (188479)
02-25-2005 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Lammy
02-25-2005 3:55 AM


2 rules

Rule #1: There is a god.
Rule #2: God is actively influencing the world.

I ask you this. Are the atheists, who started out on the religious side, really putting these 2 rules into consideration when dealing with a fundy?

Fundies often have trouble understanding why we demand evidence for everything, and I think atheists often have trouble understanding why fundies have "faith".

I think that most might be willing to keep these in mind when dealing with the religious. However, it is the how God is "influencing" the world that becomes a problem.

The idea that the universe is designed to work the way it does is an ok god-of-the-gaps argument for now. Since I can only say "I don't know" about some questions someone may choose to say "god did it" and I just shrug and leave it for now.

But a fundy is far, far from that position. That isn't what the arguments (for the most part) are about here.

I do know that the earth isn't 6,000 years old, I do know that evolution happened. Contradicting that just seems very foolish. It also has nothing to do with faith in God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 3:55 AM Lammy has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8788
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 20 of 69 (188480)
02-25-2005 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Vercingetorix
02-25-2005 10:33 AM


Degrees of Tentativity
well I agree that TOE is tentative. it is very uncertain, and a faith call and since you agree that FAITH has no place in SCIENCE, how can you take that leap (of faith) for TOE?
because I cannot.

No, it is tentative but very certain. The theory has been examined and critised for a many decades and works very well. Tentativeness may reamin but there is not very much at all.

It is, as noted, the best explanation available. That is not taken on faith at all. It is the best explanation for all the available evidence. It may be modified by more evidence but at this point it is very, very unlikely to be totally replaced.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-25-2005 10:33 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2005 11:53 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6385
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 21 of 69 (188484)
02-25-2005 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Vercingetorix
02-25-2005 10:33 AM


Re: As a Christian Evolutionist
quote:
so you are certainly uncertain about evolution and relativity?

I am very certain that the theory of evolution is basically correct. I am as certain about that as Ptolemy was that the sun went around the earth.

That is, all of the evidence is consistent with the theory of evolution. Much of the evidence is such that if it were different then they would pose problems for the theory of evolution. There are no known mechanisms that would account for the same evidence in the absense of evolution, and some of the contrary positions (like a single global flood in historical times) are contradicted by the evidence.

In fact, not only is the theory of evolution compatible with the known laws of science, but the laws of science, as presently known, demand that evolution should occur, and would have occurred if the earth really is more than a few million years old.

So, like Ptolemy contemplating the universe, I am as certain as I am about anything that the theory of evolution is fundamentally correct.

However, looking at the example of Ptolemy's astronomy, I acknowledge the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there is a better theory that has not yet been thought up yet that will do a better job at explaining the data that we have now, as well as the data that we will acquire in the future. But, seeing the wonderful agreement between evolution and the data we have now, and how evolution would have been disproven if the data had been different, I consider the possibility of a different and better theory to be very low.

Edited to fix some awkward grammar.

This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 02-25-2005 12:44 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-25-2005 10:33 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 69 (188489)
02-25-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Vercingetorix
02-25-2005 9:52 AM


C-Frog and R-Hector both talk about EVIDENCE. evidence leads to proof and there fore DOES PROVE, Science Proves.

On what planet? Evidence can never lead to proof. You can never prove by inference, only by deduction. And science is not a deductive process, because the axiomatic conditions are not avaliable to us.

TOE is more likely, but until proven, still wrong.

How does that make any sense? Because we don't know everything, we know nothing?

FAITH, has no place in SCIENCE!

Of course not. We have evidence, instead.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-25-2005 9:52 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12863
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 23 of 69 (188492)
02-25-2005 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
02-25-2005 11:13 AM


Re: Degrees of Tentativity
To take a slightly different perspective.

Some aspects of evolution are virtually settled. Common ancestry, for instance. But even there the details are still being sorted out - it was not so long ago that it was thought that whales were descended from mesonychids, but now we know that they are more closely related to hippos. And there are still some holdouts against the idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs so that is not entirely settled yet. And there's still a lot of research going on on the "Cambrian Explosion" (although we now know that it is far less "explosive" than a simple look at the fossil record might suggest).

On another area the whole relationship between evolution and developmental biology is a major area of research and we can expect that the theory will change to accomodate what is learned there.

So evolution is tentative in the sense that it can and will be changed as necessary to reflect our knowledge. However there are things we can have a very high degree of confidence in - and one of them is that although the theory will change, evolution is here to stay. I cannot say how the theory of evolution will change in the next 20 or 50 years, but I have no doubt that there still will be a theory of evolution and there will still be no serious scientiifc challenge to evolution - simply disputes within evolution, as there are now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 02-25-2005 11:13 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tony650, posted 02-25-2005 2:51 PM PaulK has responded

    
Lammy
Member (Idle past 123 days)
Posts: 3575
From: Chicago Suburbs
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 24 of 69 (188501)
02-25-2005 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Vercingetorix
02-25-2005 9:52 AM


First of all, click on the first link in my signature for all your style guide needs.

Vercingetorix writes:

yeah, and after reading a lot of posts it seems like Catholic Schools teach biology better than public ones.


I wouldn't be certain of that, considering that my cousine's bio teacher, who teaches in a catholic school, keep saying that this is a miracle and that is a miracle. It is bothering the heck out of my cousine and it would bother the heck out of me, too.

I think that Science and the scietific method are both part of the Positivist Philosophy, and there fore trying to PROVE!
C-Frog and R-Hector both talk about EVIDENCE. evidence leads to proof and there fore DOES PROVE, Science Proves.

You are confusing main aspects of science. One deals with the existence of something while the other deals with an explanation for dealing with that something.

Say that someone claims that he had seen a pink unicorn running around in forest A. Until a pink unicorn is discovered and examined by science, it remains nonexistent. Otherwise, we would have to believe in the existence of the easter bunny and every other mythical creature known to man.

Now, in order to explain how a pink unicorn came to be, a hypothesis is developed. After many observations and examinations of the pink unicorn (say DNA examination and behavior), a theory is developed as to the origin of the pink unicorn (say that it is related to modern day horse). The thing is we could never prove the theory, but we could have lots and lots of evidence to support the theory.

Which brings me to my next point.

look i think that creationism is the least likely scenario, but if i am true to my scientific roots, TOE is more likely, but until proven, still wrong.

You seem to have a problem with uncertainty. The way science works is it always leaves room for change. Say that evolution is declared the unquestionable truth of all things and tomorrow we find new evidence that would redefine some aspects of it, or even would even change it. Wouldn't it be better to say that we are sure of it because of all the evidence but if push comes to shove we find new evidence that contradicts our theory then we will have to change it?

Science is all about uncertainty, dude, just like your Shift button on your keyboard.

Added by edit.

How is making something the absolute truth of all things different than religious dogma? In case you don't know, we are as certain with the theory of evolution as the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease. Would you say that things fall upward because we haven't "proven" the theory of gravity?

This message has been edited by Resurrected Hector, 02-25-2005 12:31 AM


People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-25-2005 9:52 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

    
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 69 (188505)
02-25-2005 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Vercingetorix
02-25-2005 10:33 AM


Re: As a Christian Evolutionist
quote:
well I agree that TOE is tentative. it is very uncertain, and a faith call and since you agree that FAITH has no place in SCIENCE, how can you take that leap (of faith) for TOE?

Where is faith required? I fail to see where faith is required when there is evidence to support every part of the ToE. Without time travel we will never be able to "prove" that evolution occured in the past through random mutation and natural selection. However, all of the existing evidence points towards all organisms sharing a single common ancestor and that changes over time were due to random mutation and natural selection. No faith is needed since the theory is supported by evidence and consistent with all of the evidence.

Christianity, on the other hand, does require faith since there is no scientific evidence for the Resurrection nor for the existence of God. There is also no evidence for a 6,000 year old earth, the special creation of organisms, nor a world wide flood. In fact, all of the evidence contradicts such beliefs.

I really don't understand why you claim that the ToE requires faith. Science is not about "believing" something, it is about accepting a theory as being consistent with the evidence we have at hand. Nothing more, nothing less. You can still believe that the theory is wrong, but you must do so with the understanding that it is consistent with the evidence, the evidence we find in God's Creation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-25-2005 10:33 AM Vercingetorix has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-25-2005 3:33 PM Loudmouth has responded

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 1500 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 26 of 69 (188522)
02-25-2005 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by PaulK
02-25-2005 11:53 AM


Re: Degrees of Tentativity
PaulK writes:

And there are still some holdouts against the idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs so that is not entirely settled yet.

My apologies if this is off-topic but this is actually something I've wondered about for some time. Just how contentious is the relationship between birds and dinosaurs? I've heard that it is still, as you say, not settled yet. Are there indeed still legitimate doubts about this among those in the fields (biologists, taxonomists, etc)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2005 11:53 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Loudmouth, posted 02-25-2005 3:24 PM Tony650 has not yet responded
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 02-25-2005 5:07 PM Tony650 has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 69 (188525)
02-25-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tony650
02-25-2005 2:51 PM


Re: Degrees of Tentativity
quote:
Just how contentious is the relationship between birds and dinosaurs? I've heard that it is still, as you say, not settled yet. Are there indeed still legitimate doubts about this among those in the fields (biologists, taxonomists, etc)?

Like Paul said, there are still holdouts. The majority accept that birds are descended from dinosaurs. In fact, modern taxonomy places birds within the dinosaur clade.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tony650, posted 02-25-2005 2:51 PM Tony650 has not yet responded

  
Vercingetorix 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 28 of 69 (188530)
02-25-2005 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Loudmouth
02-25-2005 12:59 PM


Re: As a Christian Evolutionist
I will be the first to admit that my knowledge in this area is not vast. I really appriciate everyone's comments, thanks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Loudmouth, posted 02-25-2005 12:59 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Loudmouth, posted 02-25-2005 3:37 PM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 69 (188532)
02-25-2005 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Vercingetorix
02-25-2005 3:33 PM


Re: As a Christian Evolutionist
quote:
I will be the first to admit that my knowledge in this area is not vast. I really appriciate everyone's comments, thanks.

And thank you for the positive attitude. I don't mind if people disagree with me, but I do mind if they disagree because of a lack of knowledge. All I really ask is for creationists to know what the theory of evolution states and the evidence that supports it. If evolution is going to be shown to be wrong by creationists it only makes sense if they first understand what evolution is. It's kind of hard to falsify something if you don't understand what it is.

Anyway, we all appreciate your candor and your curiousity. All of us science geeks started that way, and continue to be curious. That's what makes science, learning and discovering new things to fulfill a curiosity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-25-2005 3:33 PM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 69 (188542)
02-25-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Vercingetorix
02-23-2005 2:21 PM


quote:
After reading posts on here from others who say they are creationists, I am embarrassed to call myself one, geez! I realize people make errors (I'm really good at this, as you can probably see from my grammar), and the scientists have thier own language, but come on! The creationists make some generalized opinions and think they are stating facts that even I can see are wrong.

--I believe this tendency is inherent. An adamant fundamentalist has a far greater motivation to address the issues discussed on this board than any other. The complete lack of coherence and consensus, and the application of the pseudoscientific method in the YEC community is also a problem.. There are precious few headed in the right direction. I think the ultimate problem is that most, if not all, YEC's are too busy trying to 'prove' their religious ideas rather than work with science to determine the veracity of those ideas. This could potentially be corrected to some degree, but it just doesn't look like it is going to happen.


"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-23-2005 2:21 PM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017