2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

Well, now, I'm a bit confused, but...I think what I mean is that if "evolution of all living things from a common ancestor" is the conclusion, then all the evidence Yaro listed seems like circumstantial evidence to me. IOW, "truth" seems a bit overconfident, to me.Is that better?--Jason

We need to establish a bit of your terminology and then we can get into the rest - what do you think a "scientific proof is"?When I use "fact" in the context of science, I use it to mean -

quote:

---

in science, a fact is data supported by a scientific experiment. A fact is an honest observation. A scientific fact is an honest observation seen by many scientists. A scientific fact is a scientific observation that is so accepted that it becomes difficult to consider other interpretations of the data. A fact may tentatively support or refute a model of how the universe works. Facts do not prove a model is correct. One observation of any phenomenon does not prove anything.

---

Fact - WikipediaYou wish to read this as it's an overview of how fact,theory interconnect in regards to the TOE.Evolution is a Fact and a TheoryThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Sep-2005 08:06 AM

There is not such thing as "undeniable fact". You can deny any fact you like As CK said, truth=Observation, at least when it comes to science. So, why would we share the same Junk DNA and tracers for Endogenus Retrovirii?SLOT88 Situs Judi Slot Online Terpercaya No 1 di Indonesia Esentialy an ERV is an RNA virus that after infecting a host leaves a semi-random signiature in the hosts DNA. That is, it slightly alters the DNA. We can detect these markers when sequencing a genome.Now, keep in mind, these markers are unique (no two ERV infections leave the same tracer) and only travel down a family line. So if you get an ERV, your offspring down the line will have those slight modifications to their DNA. None before.Now, why do we have many of the same ERV tracers that chimps do? Answer, we are related to a common ancestor.Further, what we call Junk DNA, is sort of a missnomor. Think of it as ancestral DNA. For example, chickens, which are related to dinosaurs, posess the genes to make scales. Yet, that gene is modified for feathers. Yet, scientists have been able to tweek the DNA to produce chickens with scales insted of feathers!I can't seem to dredge up the link at athe moment. But if I find it, I can show you some pretty cool pics of chickens that grew scales vs. feathers. Proof in so much that it points heavely in that direction! How else would you suggest that everything is so similar?... Oh, let me guess... a Common designer.Do you have any other proposals that dosn't involve an invisible magic man in the sky? Nothing PROVES anything with %100 certainty. But, the evidence does seem to lead to that conclusion. Why else would things be the way they are? Can you offer another, valid, naturalistic, explanation?This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-01-2005 08:15 AM

Why?Most scientific arguments and elements don't make it to science class. The available teaching time is limited, and we should make the best use of it.

Wow. I hate disagreeing with Wikipedia, but I do, in this case. As I understood it, data are generated by experiments...so I'm not even really understanding that sentence. Agreed. Hah. Sounds a little egotistical...but okay. So, fact = widely agreed upon interpretation of data? I am unsure about this.AS far as scientific proofs go...well, maybe there is no such thing. I was remembering geometry class. But now that I think about it, the scientific method, though similar, never really concludes anything as 100% true, while geometrical proofs do, I think.

In regards to ERVs, I've never heard of it before. So, maybe one day I'll look into it. I can say nothing against it now, of course. Are you saying that only naturalistic explanations can be true and valid? I realize that only naturalistic explanations can be scientific...but true? valid?--Jason

I think this is a very good question. And to be honest, I am not 100% sure on this one either However, my current possition reads something like this:I think all truths, emotional, spiritual, etc. can be boiled down to a naturalistic, physical component. There are neurons involved, sensual stimuli, etc. Since this is the case, all percived "truth" is naturalistic, i.e. it is dependent on phisical reality.Now, does that make these things less valuable? No, if anything it makes them MORE valuble. Because these things are tied to the same, fragile, ephemeral reality we experience every day.So, yes, I think all explanations/truths have to rely on phisical reality.

What about mathematical truths?Cannot there be valuable truths which have no physical component?

No actually.Mathmatical truth is reliant on the nature of physical reality. It does this two fold.1- Mathmatics is an idealized abstraction based on physical facts. We have a concept of addition, because we can readely see that if we put two apples together, we get more apples. In this case, 1 is an abstratct unit, + would be the verb/action which brings the two units together, = would be the result of the action.Infact, much of the first math (Euclidian geometry) dealt with measuring shapes etc. on an abstract level. There was no other math BUT geometry at the time, and sophisticated algebraic principals were expressed soley thrugh geometric means. Infact, the name, geometry means "World Measure".2 - The second reason Math is realiant on phyiscal reality, is because it is solely a function of the human mind. It is a tool created by man in order to enhance his logical faculty.

I can't completely agree with this. There are too many cases in which the physical application of mathematics (e.g non- Euclidean geometry and realtivity, group theory and particle physics) came well after the development of the mathematics itself.

I'm not denying that this could very well be the case. However, that higher math has it's roots in the physical universe somewhere down the line. Even modern calculus is descended in no small part from Euclid.There is nothing about saying that math is rooted in the physical universe to deny the possibility that math can predict things before observation. Or indeed, direct our observation to interesting predictions.Math is a logical abstraction, and as such, can be used as a tool for deduction. Something like:If X and B, then C must follow.This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-01-2005 09:48 AM

One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century. Shortened link. Please use peek to see how you can shorten such links in the future.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-01-2005 10:15 AM

Seems like this one is going the way of the Micene Human thread, which still hasn't been replied to since I bumped it. Figures.

I've not read it through yet, but try this since it seems to be the kind of study you were discussing.

Good link Modulous. It's also pretty straight forward coming from Nature. I had a more "laymen oriented" article from somewhere that actually had pictures of a chicken foot they made sprout feathers, and another area that had patches of scales.