evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997 Truth is defined as follows:2 that which is true; statement, ect. That accords with fact or reality 3 an established or verified fact, principle, ect.I find, in the same dictionary, these words and their definitions.Fact: 2 a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is 3 the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth [Fact as distinct from fancy]Science: 1 orig., the state or fact of knowledge; knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.Science does not exist if there are no immutable facts. A fact is what is true.A few example:Arithmetic is used in all fields of research, so I will use an example from there.
1 + 1 = 2If this were not a fact {I.E. True all the time, for all people, in all situation} Then your vary bases for research in erroneous. Someone could add to the equation, or change it in some way, but, the truth of the mater is that, one plus one will always equal two.Try this one:There is a law, we call it the law of gravity, that says something like ‘all mater in the universe exhibits a gravitational field’. These fields attract each other. Therefore, an object with a small gravitational field will be drawn to an object with a larger gravitational field.With this law in mind, I can say, with certainty that whatever you throw up in to the air will eventually come down. Now you may say, Ya, but there are exceptions to that rule. Well, not to put to fine a point on it, but, no, there aren’t.You say, but wait, how about the space shuttle, or microscopic items that escape the Earth’s gravitational pull?If you said this, or something like it, please forgive me, but these are not exceptions, they are add-ons.For example the Space Shuttle, It does not deify gravity, it simply adds more force pushing away from the Earth than the force generated by the Earth herself. Thus the original force, generated by the Earth, is still in effect, it is simply overpowered by the force of the rocket engines. Again, adding something to the equation, does not negate the original equation, it merely modifies it.Here is something else to think about. If there were no absolutes, {say for instance no absolute truths} then there would be no Science, or at least what we call Science today.Why? Because, if a chemist mixes together the exact same amount of exactly the same chemicals, in exactly the same order, under the exact same conditions five time and gets different outcomes each time, or half the time, there would be no way to systematically derive knowledge from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.Simply put, for us to deny real truth is to deny real science. For truth ‘3’ is the vary foundation of science ‘2’.

---

John3: 16, 17

quote:

---

Arithmetic is used in all fields of research, so I will use an example from there.
1 + 1 = 2

​

If this were not a fact {I.E. True all the time, for all people, in all situation} Then your vary bases for research in erroneous. Someone could add to the equation, or change it in some way, but, the truth of the mater is that, one plus one will always equal two.

---

But 1 + 1 = 11 can also be true.But for your "1 + 1 = 2", can you prove that it is true? (We do have a topic concerning the mathematical proof of that, buried somewhere).Moose

Using math as an example is not appropriate. Mathematical constructs are, in some cases, defined as being true. The important question is how well do what they represent correspond to some sort of reality.There are real world things for which 1 + 1 does not equal 2. Which Moose didn't really handle well. In your case you presumed the arithmetic that you are familiar with. There are many other forms of "addition" defined where appropriate. Various of these are useful in different areas of scientific investigation. Your statment here isn't really correct but it is a nit pick we don't need to get into. This really is simply not true. Please google "escape velocity" for an explanation. In this case the gravitational forces will continually slow the raise of the "whatever" but it will never get it to zero and then reverse it's direction.It is not an "add on". It is a direct, basic consequence of the nature of the "laws" of gravity. No, it seems to be something you are calling "science today" not what it actually is.What is true is that science operates with some basic background assumptions. These are not often questioned but they are checked if there is any reason to or a new ability to.For example, there is an assumption that certain "laws" (of motion, gravity, chemistry etc.) act the same way every time and every where. This seems to work darn well but part of science is to check it. If it didn't work we would have found that we are in a universe that is different than we thought.It has been stated (can't remember by who, Einstein?) that what is amazing about the universe is that it is comprehensible to us. If there wasn't some consistency, as you point out, it might be more difficult. I don't know if the result would be comprehensible or not.This isn't some sort of "absolute truth". It has worked so far. We retest things if there is reason too. We should have learned a contradictory pair of things by now. One is that we really can understand the universe and the best of our understandings are very robust (Newton's laws for example). The other is there is room for enormous changes in our understanding to arise which have to be absorbed and replace our old understandings (Einsteins "laws", for example).This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-06-2004 12:08 AM

Please note, I did not say Math I said Arithmetic. The reason I said arithmetic is because it is the simplest form of math, and under those conditions one plus one always equals two.On the question of the law of gravity, you simply state that I am wrong, and though you refer to another site, you offer no real evidence, and restate almost exactly what I said in different words {I was attempting to explain escape velocity in simple terms}. Yet, strangely, the point still remains, There are certain Facts that are True all the time, for all people, in all situation.On what science is, I’m sorry, I though I included in my string a definition from a prominent dictionary for the word science.I can agree with you on the fact that there is room for enormous changes in our understanding to arise which have to be absorbed and replace our old understandings but the basics do not change. We may make extremely large strides, in the next say ten years, in our understanding of gravity. Our understanding will never be complete, but whether or not we completely under stand it, does not change the facts, simply our understanding of them.

Ok, sorry I misunderstood.Then all we have to disagree with is the use of the word "truth". Could you clarify your point all in one place for me then?

You're right that our understanding will never be complete; facts may exist but they are forever inaccessable to us. This is the conclusion of sophistry.As a result, science is not the search for facts; it's the search for models. The model is not the reality, of course; the map is not the territory. All we can access is the model; models can never be proven though they can be disproven.All models are accepted provisionally, and are rejected or modified in the face of disconfirming evidence.Since we can never know the facts, why are we talking about them? Why don't we talk about the models, instead, since that's all we'll ever have? Nobody's saying that ultimate truth doesn't exist; that's not a statement we can prove or disprove, and we certainly can't ever know that ultimate truth.Let's stick to the models, because that's the only thing we have. Evolution is probably a fact (but maybe it's not), but all we have to talk about is the model - the theory - of evolution.

Dear NosyNed,I guess my main points so far are:1) Science {The systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.} must have at its foundation Fact and Truth. {As defined below}2) There are Absolute truths {Facts if you will}. We must know, and use some of these to seek out the knowledge we wish to find in science.3) To have faith {1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 4a.Belief and trust in God. (Webster’s II, New College Dictionary,1999)} does not necessitate a lack of proof. {I.E. Just because you are asked to believe something (anything) it does not automatically make it, what your are asked to believe in, un-provable}There are those who seem to think that science has nothing to do with fact/truth; I say Fact/Truth are the vary foundation of science.There are those who say that faith is the vary opposite of fact; I say the facts will do you no good if you do not believe in them.There are those who say that absolutes do not exist; I say with out absolutes, this universe would not exist.Posted previouslyScience does not deal in truth!?According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary {third Edition, 1997} Truth is defined as follows:2 that which is true; statement, ect. That accords with fact or reality 3 an established or verified fact, principle, ect.I find, in the same dictionary, these words and their definitions.Fact: 2 a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is 3 the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth [Fact as distinct from fancy]Science: 1 orig., the state or fact of knowledge; knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.Science does not exist if there are no immutable facts. A fact is what is true.A few example:Arithmetic is used in all fields of research, so I will use an example from there.1 + 1 = 2If this were not a fact {I.E. True all the time, for all people, in all situation} Then your vary bases for research in erroneous. One could add to the equation, or change it in some way, but, the truth of the mater is that, one plus one will always equal two.Try this one:There is a law, we call it the law of gravity, that says something like ‘all mater in the universe exhibits a gravitational field’. These fields attract each other. Therefore, an object with a small gravitational field will be drawn to an object with a larger gravitational field.With this law in mind, I can say, with certainty that whatever you throw up in to the air will eventually come down. Now you may say, Ya, but there are exceptions to that rule. Well, not to put to fine a point on it, but, no, there aren’t.You say, but wait, how about the space shuttle, or microscopic items that escape the Earth’s gravitational pull?If you said this, or something like it, please forgive me, but these are not exceptions, they are add-ons.For example the Space Shuttle, It does not deify gravity, it simply adds more force pushing away from the Earth than the force generated by the Earth herself. Thus the original force, generated by the Earth, is still in effect, it is simply overpowered by the force of the rocket engines. Again, adding something to the equation, does not negate the original equation, it merely modifies it.Here is something else to think about. If there were no absolutes, {say for instance no absolute truths} then there would be no Science, or at least what we call Science today.Why? Because, if a chemist mixes together the exact same amount of exactly the same chemicals, in exactly the same order, under the exact same conditions five time and gets different outcomes each time, or half the time, there would be no way to systematically derive knowledge from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.Simply put, for us to deny real truth is to deny real science. For truth ‘3’ is the vary foundation of science ‘2’.I, as of yet, have not posted this. So, I may as well post it now.Can we be absolutely sure, there are no absolutes??Can we be absolutely sure, that, there are no absolutes? And, if we can, Is that not in it’s self an absolute? Therefore, belying the idea that there are not absolutes.Also, If we cannot be absolutely sure, there are no absolutes than, is it not, at least, possible that there are?The reason I ask this question is that there seams to be an endless debate over what it true and what is not true, and the only measuring stick seams to be the beliefs/Opinions of the person speaking/writing.I have actually had people say, Well, that just not so and then turn around and say the same thing I said, in different word, and then claim that what thy just said/wrote proves that I’m wrong.First, a few definitions, so we can all work from the same page, sort a speak:Absolute: 3a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions: Unconditional 6 Not to be doubted: Positive (Webster’s II, New College Dictionary,1999) {I.E. True all the time, for all people, in all situation}Fact: 2a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is 3the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth [Fact as distinct from fancy] (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997Truth: 2that which is true; statement, ect. That accords with fact or reality 3an established or verified fact, principle, ect. (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997)If, in fact, there are not absolutes, then, as far as I understand it, there is only opinion. Therefore my opinion is no more, and no less, valid then anyone else’s. So, that would mean then, if someone wanted to say, The Earth is flat that opinion would be no less valid then if someone else said, the Earth is round. Only if there are absolutes can someone say No, your both wrong, the Earth is a sphere.The idea that there are no absolutes, {No absolute truths, no absolute facts} seams to be, to me, circular logic. {I.E. If there were no absolutes, then that in it’s self would be an absolute, and so on.}Now, if there are, in fact, absolutes {which is the only logical conclusion I can come to} then it should not be to hard to define a few of them.Am I making any cense at all? Or, am I over thinking this?If you think, as I do, that there are absolutes, then please, give us a few examples, and tell us why these should be considered absolute.If, on the other hand, you think that you can show that there are no absolutes, then I invite you to try to prove it.As to why I am posting this here, where Evolution and Creation are being discussed.I post this here because, if there are absolutes {I.E. things that are true all the time, for all people, in all situation} you can correctly say one {Creation or Evolution} is true [2,3] and the other is not. But, on the other hand, if there are no absolutes then both are of equal value {I.E. nether is wrong, and, for that matter, nether is right}.As I see it, you must first resolve the issue of absolutes, before you can make a decision on which one {Creation or Evolution} is correct.Which, by the way, is the first step in the scientific method:As I understand it, the scientific method goes something like this:1) Correctly identify the frame of Reference.2) Determine the initial conditions.3) Perform an experiment, or observe the phenomenon noting what takes place, and when and where.4) Note the final conditions.5) Form an hypothesis.6) Test the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations.

---

John3: 16, 17

But nobody's saying that absolute truth doesn't exist.It's just that we can't know it. The fundamental truths of the universe are not directly accessable to our minds, partially because of the nature of thought itself, and partially because sophistry cannot be refuted. It might not exist, though. That's the point of sophistry. There's no way to tell if we live in an actual reality or just a perfect simulation.But the scientific method - the search for the accurate model - works no matter if sophistry is true or not, because it doesn't purport to find the truth, just the most accurate model. Only if you wanted to prove one of them was correct.We don't do proof in science, because the question of absolutes is fundamentally unresolvable. If we waited around for the answer to that, we'd never get anywhere.But the search for the most accurate model, based on the wieght of evidence (which is not proof), works no matter what the status of absolutes is.That's why science isn't about proof. We don't prove in science the way we prove in mathematics, because if we labored under that burden of proof, we'd never get anywhere.Science is not the search for proof, or for truth. It's about constructing accurate predictive models, because that process works no matter what the status of absolutes is.So, no. You don't have to determine if absolutes exist or not in order to know that evolution is the more accurate history of life on Earth.

Dear Crashfrog,Let me see if I understand you correctly.Your saying that, we are incapable of knowing facts, and that science deals in models; but yet we can decide that some models are confirmable, and others are not. Correct?If this is so. How then can you say a Model is Confirmable. You can’t use facts you just said that they are forever inaccessible to us so what do you plan on using to Confirm or reject something? And, what makes you think that we cannot know facts? I personally know many facts:It is a fact that:
Under the right conditions Nitroglycerin goes boom.
The Earth is a sphere (Oblong, but still a sphere).
The Earth revolves around Sol (our sun).
If you run, in the rain, you will get wetter then if you walked. (If you wish to experiment with this one, Please, be careful. I do not want someone hurt; especially on my account)
If you’re up north, in the dead of winter, and it’s blow freezing, and you stick your tong to a metal pole, out side, it will get stuck there. (Please, do not try this one at home; or at all, for that matter)I could list, probably hundreds, more; however I think I’ve made my point. There are facts; we can know them. With out facts the whole idea of knowledge would be, well, irrelevant.If, as you contend, we could not know facts, then there would be no point in even having a discussion. This because, if you can’t know facts, and I can’t know facts, then all we have is your opinion, and my opinion. Since my opinion is just as valid as your opinion, with no facts to back ether of them up, then both models are of equal value, and thus neither should be disregarded.Only if you can prove (with facts) that one is correct (or closer to correct), and the other is not, is there a reason to disregard one and keep the other. Of course, with out knowable facts, even that is just my opinion.Accuracy, conformability, even conclusions, have there bases in fact. You say, The map is not the territory. You’re right; on the other hand, the map is useless if it does not conform to what is known about the territory. What is known is a fact [3] it is the truth [2,3].You say that the weight of evidence is not proof. Now according to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997 the definition of Evidence is: 3something that tends to prove; grounds for belief 4 LAW something presented in a legal proceeding, as a statement of a witness, an object, etc., which bears on or establishes a point in question.Oddly enough, all of these seams to rely on Facts, including evidence and Proof.Fact: 2 a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is 3 the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth [Fact as distinct from fancy] (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997)Truth: 2that which is true; statement, ect. That accords with fact or reality 3an established or verified fact, principle, ect. (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997)

---

John3: 16, 17

Just a couple minor points.First, a Dictionary is only a history book. It does not actually tell us what a word means, rather it tells us how most people used the word in the recent past. The meanings evolve and change over time and many words actually take on contraditory meanings. Take, for example, the word BAD.Second, many of the things that you call facts are still being questioned and tested. Take as an example, "sticking your tongue on cold metal when it's below freezing". What you really mean is "So far whenever tested, here's what has happened". But still, generation after generation, it gets tested. Kids have to check for themselves to see if it's true.Science is very much sticking your tongue on metal when it's freezing. Every single scientific theory is like that. And they all get tested continuously, generation after generation. And in almost every case, given sufficient testing, they eventually get overthrown, modified or expanded.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Under the right conditions Nitroglycerin goes boom.

---

But why does it go boom? The Truth of Nature is the why, not observations. Is it unstable bonds? Why are they unstable? So forth and so on until we come to Atomic Theory, which is a model that is accepted tentatively because we may never know the Truth in regards to the atom. There are even philosophical questions surroundin the existence of the atom, and those are well outside of the purview of science. Science is a tool for constructing accurate models, not for finding the meaning of life.

No, none of them are confirmable. That's why scientific models are tentative.On the other hand, they are falsifiable. We can know which ones are wrong; we can't know which ones are right. Because everything you observe about reality may not be real; it might simply be hallucination. It might be an illusion created by a demon to confuse you. It might be that you're in the Matrix.It might be any number of other things besides reality that you experience; that's why truth is inaccessable to us.I would have thought this was obvious. You don't know them, though. You think you do, but observations might prove your "facts" wrong. Much as the "fact" of the geocentricity of the Solar System was proven wrong by observation.If you think you "know" these facts to be true, you're overreaching. We tentatively accept these facts as factual because so far they've not been contradicted by observation.That's not to say they won't ever be contradicted. They might. That's why we cleave to them tentatively. Not so. Clearly, we have experiences. Just because we can't know the ultimate truth behind them doesn't mean we can't try to fit them into an explanitory framework.And ultimately, if your VCR shows you the movie you want, does it matter whether or not the VCR is really "real", or if it's just a perfect simulacrum? If the experience is the same either way? To the contrary; there's still things we can agree on. If I see an apple on the table, and you do too, that's not proof that the apple really is there - we could both be having the same unlikely hallucination, independantly - but it is pretty good reason to accept, tentatively, the conclusion that there is an apple there - with the provision that, at such time as additional data about the existence of that apple comes to light, we'll revisit our conclusion and maybe change our minds.Get it, yet? Tentative. Because we can't know for sure, we have to be tentative. Right, that's Kant's Inductive Fallacy.All inductive reasoning is fallacious, because it relies on the Fallacy of Affiring the Consequent. All of science is based on that logical fallacy. Just because something is true one hundred times, or one thousand times, or even a million times, that's still not proof that it will be true the millionth-and-one time.Because all scientific conclusions are fallacious, they cannot be accepted as proof. They can, however, be accepted as explanitory frameworks that make predictions, provided you accept them tentatively, and are prepared to revise in the light of new data.Don't make the mistake of assuming that because we don't know everything, we know nothing. There's plenty for us to do in the universe of sophistry; plenty to find out and plenty to talk about. It's just that we can't know any of it for certain. The fundamental truths of the universe are inherently inaccessable to us.

Dear Loudmouth,You are completely correct, in that we may never know the {complete} Truth in regards to the atom. On the other hand, what we find out about the atom in the future will not change the fact that four atoms of hydrogen, combined with two atoms of Oxygen produce water. Here again, the facts do not change, our understanding of them may.No matter what future discoveries are made, under the right conditions, Nitroglycerin will still go BOOM.Again, according to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997 Truth is defined as follows:2 that which is true; statement, ect. That accords with fact or reality 3 an established or verified fact, principle, ect.I find, in the same dictionary, these words and their definitions.Fact: 2 a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is 3 the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth [Fact as distinct from fancy]Science: 1 orig., the state or fact of knowledge; knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.Science does not exist if there are no immutable facts. A fact is what is true.A few example:Arithmetic is used in all fields of research, so I will use an example from there.
1 + 1 = 2If this were not a fact {I.E. True all the time, for all people, in all situation} Then your vary bases for research in erroneous. One could add to the equation, or change it in some way, but, the truth of the mater is that, one plus one will always equal two.Try this one:There is a law, we call it the law of gravity, that says something like ‘all mater in the universe exhibits a gravitational field’. These fields attract each other. Therefore, an object with a small gravitational field will be drawn to an object with a larger gravitational field.With this law in mind, I can say, with certainty that whatever you throw up in to the air will eventually come down. Now you may say, Ya, but there are exceptions to that rule. Well, not to put to fine a point on it, but, no, there aren’t.You say, but wait, how about the space shuttle, or microscopic items that escape the Earth’s gravitational pull?If you said this, or something like it, please forgive me, but these are not exceptions, they are add-ons.For example the Space Shuttle, It does not deify gravity, it simply adds more force pushing away from the Earth than the force generated by the Earth herself. Thus the original force, generated by the Earth, is still in effect, it is simply overpowered by the force of the rocket engines. Again, adding something to the equation, does not negate the original equation, it merely modifies it.Here is something else to think about. If there were no absolutes, {say for instance no absolute truths} then there would be no Science, or at least what we call Science today.Why? Because, if a chemist mixes together the exact same amount of exactly the same chemicals, in exactly the same order, under the exact same conditions five time and gets different outcomes each time, or half the time, there would be no way to systematically derive knowledge from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.Simply put, for us to deny real truth is to deny real science. For truth ‘3’ is the vary foundation of science ‘2’.This message has been edited by jrtjr1, 08-13-2004 06:04 AM

---

John3: 16, 17

quote:

---

Science does not exist if there are no immutable facts. A fact is what is true.

---

This is false. This is why science holds all of it's theories tentatively, because there may not be immutable facts. However, science does rely on axioms, statements that are assumed to be true. One axiom is that repeated observations by different individuals are reliable. That is, objective facts (but not Truths) can be derived from repeated experimentation by different investigators. However, axioms are really not accessible to science, but they are accessible to philosophy.

quote:

---

Arithmetic is used in all fields of research, so I will use an example from there.
1 + 1 = 2

---

Science doesn't really investigate math, it only uses math as a tool for investigation. For example, Newton's laws as they were first written were proven wrong by the theory of General Relativity. Now, was it the math that was incorrect, or was it the model that was incorrect? Obviously, math was not correctly applied, and so the model was incorrect. Science assumes that math is correct, that is one of the axioms of science is that math is provable and immutable, just as repeated observations are also another axiom. However, it is still possible that an evil demon is making us think 4 when we add 2 and 2 when in fact the real answer is 5. However, this type of philosophical question is not accessible to science.

quote:

---

With this law in mind, I can say, with certainty that whatever you throw up in to the air will eventually come down. Now you may say, Ya, but there are exceptions to that rule. Well, not to put to fine a point on it, but, no, there aren’t.

---

How do you know that we will not discover anti-gravity? How do we know that there are exceptions to the rule, but they have yet to be discovered? The laws of gravity are still tentative for this very reason.

quote:

---

Here is something else to think about. If there were no absolutes, {say for instance no absolute truths} then there would be no Science, or at least what we call Science today.

​

Why? Because, if a chemist mixes together the exact same amount of exactly the same chemicals, in exactly the same order, under the exact same conditions five time and gets different outcomes each time, or half the time, there would be no way to systematically derive knowledge from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.

---

Then science would conclude that chemistry acts through random processes, just as radioactive decay does. Science is able to model random events through statistics and probabilities. For instance, we are able to calculate the odds of winning the lottery even though we don't know what combinations of numbers will come up. Evolution is able to do the same with random mutations and natural selection in applying science to population genetics.

If you're concluding that, though, you're committing the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. (As well as offering a tautology with this example; without specifing what those conditions are, you're assuming what you're concluding - that under the conditions for which nitroglycerin explodes, nitroglycerin explodes. Duh.)How can we know anything for sure if our conclusions are based on fallacies? Hopefully you're going to address that point.Conclusions of science are tentative and subject to future revision due to additional data; no one's denying that a real truth exists, it's just that our models are not it, science is not it, and it can never be known. All we have are models. Math is another terrible example because all conclusions of math are tautologies, too. In fact, "1 + 1 = 2" is not true for all people in all situations; in particular, it's not true for anyone who doesn't accept the fundamental axioms of math. These axioms are not derived but assumed."1 + 1 = 2" is only true for those people who have assumed that the axioms of mathematics are true.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-13-2004 03:23 PM