What is science?

A/ Yes this is true about the scientific method. What you must realise is that this method can be used by any scientist not just those who prefer an evolutionary way of thinking, those who wish to use this method to build upon a framework or presupposition. (The world is natural, God made the world etc). Two different frameworks to build upon it is no difference.B/ Correct again. Alot of people think creation is not falisible but this is very illogical. If you think it is wrong then of course it is falsible. If it wasnt then it would be the truth correct?. Both evolution and creation are falsible and have both problems with theories. They both contradict each other. But neither are proven fact.C/ Actually there are many things in science that can be proven. For example the law of gravity. However when it comes to historical science one cannot prove 100%. This goes for both evolution and creation. Practical science can be proven. Some medicines can heal some sicknesses etc. All this is everyday science that one can prove. But we are talking about theories about what happened about the past and one cannot prove this things apart from theories and evidence interpretation (Both historical forms evolution and creation have this problem).D/ Yes its true it must be logical however when creation conflicts with evolution. Many people automatically think creation is false because it conflicts with what evolution has already proven whereas they both found the same evidence just interpreted differently. Creation cannot be proved wrong by what evolution has found and vice versa.SCIENCE OF ONE RELIGION VS THE SCIENCE OF THE OTHER.

You misunderstand completely what is mean by falsifiable. First get that into your head. You don't get it yet. At all!Something isn't necessarily wrong if it is falsifiable. It is simply something that allows you to check it.If my kid says "I didn't get up in the night.". That statement may not be falsifiable. That is, I have no way to check it. He may have and not done anything to leave a trace. He may not have gotten up at all. I can't tell the difference. The statment may be true or not but it is not falsifiable.If my kid says "I cleaned up my room." Then I can make a prediction from that. If it is true then the room will be a bit less messy than usual. If false everything, and more, will be where I saw it an hour or so ago. Now I can test the statement. I go and make an observation. How does the room look? The statement was falsifiable. It may still be true but it could have been shown to be false if it was.The creation account of a flood can be used to make predictions about how fossilized life would be left behind. If this is done the account becomes "testable" (maybe that is a better word than falsifiable).Likewise, the evolutionary model makes predictions about what the fossil record should look like. If the record doesn't look that way the the evolutionary model is falsified (tested and found to be in error).Unfortunately, creationists don't seem to want to supply those predictions from their "model". However, if the proponents of the model won't make those predictions then they are not producing a falsifiable suggestion.When the flood model is described there are some pretty obvious predictions that can be derived from it. This has been done here by non-creationists. Those predictions show that the creation flood model is simply wrong.The idea of a god creating the whole universe at the moment of the big bang is, for the moment, not testable. We can't say if it is right or wrong. It is not "falsifiable" that is, not testable. For the time being you may adopt this as your idea of the start of the universe if you like.However, science won't do that because most peoples description of god doesn't allow for any testing at all. If you can't do any testing you can't learn anything further. If we'd adopted that approach with demon caused disease we'd still be dying of infectious diseases.

quote:

---

Likewise, the evolutionary model makes predictions about what the fossil record should look like. If the record doesn't look that way the the evolutionary model is falsified (tested and found to be in error).

---

PUNTUATED EQUILIBRIUM anyone?. If the fossil record is the only means available for using the scientific method to observe macro evolution, and if that record provides nothing observable that corresponds with the theory, then isnt the evolutionists left holding a groundless theory?. Without convincing evidence from the fossils the theory of evolution would have no basis for grounding itself in the scientific method and would be left in the realms of faith. True or false? (A bit off topic im sorry,Actually a topic on puntuacted equilibrium sounds like a great idea)

quote:

---

...If the fossil record is the only means available for using the scientific method to observe macro evolution, and if that record provides nothing observable that corresponds with the theory, then isnt the evolutionists left holding a groundless theory?.

---

Some mighty big 'ifs' there, almeyda. Are you trying to say that those contingencies are actually the case? 'IF' so, can you support them?

quote:

---

Without convincing evidence from the fossils the theory of evolution would have no basis for grounding itself in the scientific method and would be left in the realms of faith.

---

Actually, the ToE explains the fossil record with excellent predictability. Do you have an alternative? And no, no faith is involved - only evidence and an explanation of the evidence.

quote:

---

True or false?

---

True... if you wish to accept a false premise.

Punctuated equlibrium would make a good topic. If you want to learn something about it you may propose one.However, the issue was how different "models" (hypothoses, theories, whatever) are distinguished. When there are multiple suggestions the capability of falsification is used to help discard some or even all of them. If any survive that test then more tests are thought up and tried.At this point the creationist ideas have been falsified for about two centuries so even if evolutionary theory were proven wrong in some way they won't come back.Punctuated equilibrium isn't an idea that is going to help you all that much by the way. It fits nicely within the basic theory and there is fossil evidence both for gradual morphological change and for rapid change with stasis. PE just shows that change isn't always gradual and slow. Darwin was wrong on that part.

Almeyda,Well three out of four's not bad!To the point of disagreement.... The "law of gravity" is an excellent example where science actually had it wrong, or at least not entirely correct. Einsteinian physics works better. This is a perfect example of why we should be tentative about all scientific conclusions.When you are sick, & you get better after taking a drug, how can you be sure it was the drug? Maybe you would have got better anyway & the drug was incidental? In fact this is a serious question that drug trials attempt to answer, often insufficiently. Why? Many drugs work on some people & not others. I get back pain & have been prescribed a fairly hefty opiate derivative, tramodol, to take in conjuction with ibubprofen & paracetamol. My doctor maintains that this is a powerful pain-killing coctail. For all intents & purposes it may as well be a placebo, yet it's pain killing powers are well established, yet has no effect on me. My wife takes the same drug for the same reason & gets excellent relief. So much for "proving" medicines. The best we can say is they work in the majority of cases. In scientific parlance we can say that testing shows these drugs to have an effect on the population at large that goes beyond what we would expect due to chance. That is not "proof", it is strong evidence.Furthermore, all science requires instruments to be working 100% accurately, when in fact no such thing exists. Take gravirty, for example, are you sure the instruments used to measure the accleration due to it were 100% accurate? Can you be 100% sure your senses haven't misled you, or you misinterpreted? No, of course you can't: this means we can not be 100% sure of the results, which means there is tentativity involved, which means the conclusions are not "proven".It doesn't matter what example you can give me, I can show you how your measurements may be awry. How can you form a theory that is 100% FACT when there are assumptions that can never be FACT? It may seem churlish, I agree, but there's more than one set of measurements that have put the kaibosh on subsequent conclusions. We simply can not be sure our measurements are correct.That all science is tentative is not my own personal view, pick up any book on what science is, & you'll get the same story.So, I'll ask you to agree point C again, please.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-19-2004 04:02 AMThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-19-2004 04:22 AMThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-19-2004 05:10 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Almeyda, But there are things that are observable that support macroevolution. Remember the colossal odds against evolutionary expectations matching the fossil record?Molecular (both amino acid & nucleotide sequences) phylogenetic analyses also corroborate, again at vast odds of occurring by chance, macroevolutionary theory. There is convincing evidence, I present it here. Moreover, it is only one line of evidence.It's interesting that you'll happily swallow medication with far less statistical support than evolution. 5.68*10^323:1, anyone? False, on so many levels, too.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-19-2004 08:26 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

If the fossil record is the only means available for using the scientific method to observe macro evolution, and if that record provides nothing observable that corresponds with the theory, then isnt the evolutionists left holding a groundless theory?.

---

There is ample fossil evidence. On top of that, we also have DNA evidence from living species today that supports common ancestory and macroevolution. Fossils alone are enough, but couple this with the DNA evidence and evolution is a very solid theory.

quote:

---

Without convincing evidence from the fossils the theory of evolution would have no basis for grounding itself in the scientific method and would be left in the realms of faith. True or false?

---

It would be problematic, I agree. However, given the myriad of transitional fossils found in the fossil record this isn't a problem. And again, the DNA evidence is very substantial as well.So far all we have heard from you is playground retorts that sound like "Am too, Am not". You might want to actually look at websites other than the creationist ones you seem to frequent. TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy is a great start.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomena."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------JM:
JM: Of course, if this is true then everything is designed and we would have no reference for 'not designed'.John Paul:
We went over this before and that is as false today as it was then. There are things that are directly designed and things that are a product of design. For example clouds are not directly designed but are the product of the design of this planet.JM:
That makes ID a tautology and quite useless as a scientific endeavor.John Paul:
ID is very useful as has been presented by scientists and investigators alike. For example we are quite sure that Stonehenge is the product of design and not the result of natural processes (even if nature itself was designed). ID is much less of tautology than is natural selection- who survives? the fittest. how do we define the fittest? those who survive to produce more offspring.JM:
When ID'ists such as Paul Nelson admit that ID is not scientific but belongs in a religion or theology class that should tell you that you're not up to speed on ID.John Paul:
Yup and when you provide a reference to Paul Nelson saying that you may have some credibility. I know what he says about the ToE.

Percy, the evidence I am talking about is the same evidence that every scientist uses. Life is evidence. The cell is evidence. Everything that goes on in cells is evidence. ID, Creation and naturalism are conclusions drawn by that evidence.Percy:
Therefore, science proposes that life, and later species diversity, arose through processes known to us and that we have much evidence for, in other words, that they obeyed all the laws and principles of physics, chemistry and biology.John Paul:
That is wrong. Scientists make that proposition not science. There are NO laws of physics, chemistry and certainly none in biology that says life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes. Even in the best scenarios we can't even come close.Percy:
You, on the other hand, propose that life was designed by some intelligence.John Paul:
We have two choices. Either life is the product of purely natural processes or it isn't. Why is only one of those choices considered scientific when there isn't any evidence to support it?Percy:
But there is no evidence for that intelligence, and it fails to address the key question of life's origin, i.e., if life can only be designed, then who designed our designer?John Paul:
Give it a rest. The evidence for the intelligence can and is being seen through the microscopes in labs around the world. Who designed the designer is only a key question to nay-sayers. By your logic since we don't know who designed Stonehenge it must be a natural formation.

quote:

---

John Paul: We went over this before and that is as false today as it was then. There are things that are directly designed and things that are a product of design. For example clouds are not directly designed but are the product of the design of this planet.

---

So, now we have 'directly designed' and 'products of design'! This is getting better all the time.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was once an evolutionist. This overwhelming BS was very mundane when looked at through objective eyes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hello, John Paul.
This is an interesting comment. I was a creationist until it became evident to me that biological evolution explained the real world much better than creationism did.John Paul:
Perhaps it was your sense of what creationism was/ is that was/ is the problem. I have seen too many people blatantly misrepresnt what Creationists actually think about biological evolution. For example I have heard that Creationists think that God created all species and no new species arise. However Creationists at least since the time of Linne (the father of our biological classification system) proposed the Created Kind was more on the level of Genus. Yes, Linne was a Creationist who set out to determine what the Created kinds were. Was his work science?Why do I think I am more objective? As I have stated before I do not limit science to the limitations of scientists. IOW I let the evidence lead me to a conclusion and I don't let a conclusion, ie naturalism, lead the evidence.

edge:
So, now we have 'directly designed' and 'products of design'!John Paul:
Of course we do. And it is not "now" but has always been. You and I are the products of the design of life. We weren't directly designed. By design I can throw a baseball through a glass window. The shattering of the glass is a product of that design. The pattern of the shattered glass was not directly designed, but a product of the design.

NN:
At this point the creationist ideas have been falsified for about two centuries so even if evolutionary theory were proven wrong in some way they won't come back.John Paul:
Any examples of those allegedly falsified Creationists' ideas? Real ideas not the misrepresented ideas. You do realize that evolutionary ideas have been falsified also. Piltdown Man being one of them.While you are at it please provide a way to objectively test the notion that cetaceans evolved from land mammals. Please provide a falsification.The ToE is a theory along the lines of "I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't already believe it."

quote:

---

John Paul: Of course we do. And it is not "now" but has always been. You and I are the products of the design of life.

---

Yes, yes, I understand that. However, it bothers me that you are redefining 'design' under an umbrella that includes virtually everything.

quote:

---

We weren't directly designed. By design I can throw a baseball through a glass window. The shattering of the glass is a product of that design. The pattern of the shattered glass was not directly designed, but a product of the design.

---

Or the product of a process. A product that contains information, in fact. Are you saying that all process are part of the design? If so, it seems you are moving toward an unfalsifiable position. Every piece of evidence supports your position by tautology. You are no longer in the realm of science.