Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is science?
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 61 of 152 (109576)
05-21-2004 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by John Paul
05-21-2004 12:17 AM


Re: testability
quote:
While you are at it please provide a way to objectively test the notion that cetaceans evolved from land mammals.
Every transitional species discovered in that sequence supports evolution of cetaceans. There is no YEC or ID explanation of the fossil record.
quote:
Please provide a falsification.
That is part of the problem. In reality, YEC cannot be falsified becuase it is a miracle. On the other hand, the biblical account of the flood, as interpreted by most YECs, can be safely discarded.
What we really have is the inability of YECism to explain life as we see it today and in the fossil record. To most of us, that constitutes a refutation. To YECs, obviously, there will never be enough data to refute YECism. That is one reason why YEC is a religious belief system and evolution is not.
quote:
The ToE is a theory along the lines of "I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't already believe it."
And ID could be considered along the lines of "I can't believe it, so it must not have happened."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 12:17 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 12:48 AM edge has not replied
 Message 63 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 12:48 AM edge has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 152 (109584)
05-21-2004 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by edge
05-21-2004 12:34 AM


Re: testability
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While you are at it please provide a way to objectively test the notion that cetaceans evolved from land mammals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
Every transitional species discovered in that sequence supports evolution of cetaceans. There is no YEC or ID explanation of the fossil record.
John Paul:
But transitionals only exist in the minds of people who want to see them. ID is about biology. There is no way to tell if what you think is a transitional got to be that way via biological evolution/ genetic heredity.
I ask for an objective test and instead get a very subjective test. Go figure...
Explain the fossil record? What again? Billions of dead organisms buried in sediments. We already know in order to be fossilized an organism requires rapid burial. Rapid burial refutes gradualism as a method for producing strata.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please provide a falsification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
That is part of the problem. In reality, YEC cannot be falsified becuase it is a miracle. On the other hand, the biblical account of the flood, as interpreted by most YECs, can be safely discarded.
John Paul:
I asked you (NN really) to provide a falsification for the alleged evolution of cetaceans from land mammals. Typical of evolutionists you twist it around and provide a non-response. YEC can be falsified. All you need to do is show that natural processes can account for life, the solar system and the universe. Perhaps it is YOUR interpretation that can be discarded. I have asked this of you before- what would we use for a reference in order to refute the global flood? Please remember that more than just a flood occured.
edge:
What we really have is the inability of YECism to explain life as we see it today and in the fossil record.
John Paul:
The reality is it is your inability to understand what YECs say about life. Linne, the father of our biological classification system, was a Creationist in search of the Created Kind. Was his work science?
ID uses all of our current knowledge pertaining to design and comes to the conclusion that life was designed.
This message has been edited by John Paul, 05-20-2004 11:49 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by edge, posted 05-21-2004 12:34 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by MrHambre, posted 05-21-2004 12:33 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 69 by Loudmouth, posted 05-21-2004 1:33 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 05-21-2004 2:45 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 152 (109585)
05-21-2004 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by edge
05-21-2004 12:34 AM


Re: testability
deleted double post...
This message has been edited by John Paul, 05-20-2004 11:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by edge, posted 05-21-2004 12:34 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by edge, posted 05-21-2004 1:03 AM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 152 (109589)
05-21-2004 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by edge
05-21-2004 12:26 AM


Re: Science defined
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edge:
Yes, yes, I understand that. However, it bothers me that you are redefining 'design' under an umbrella that includes virtually everything.
John Paul:
That's your opinion. In reality I didn't redefine anything. It is my opinion that you are redining science- or trying to. Poppler's notion of falsifiability has been placed in the scrap heap many years ago. How do you falsify reality? If my exitence can't be falsified does that mean I exist outside of the realm of science? Absurd...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by edge, posted 05-21-2004 12:26 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 65 of 152 (109590)
05-21-2004 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by John Paul
05-21-2004 12:48 AM


quote:
John Paul: But transitionals only exist in the minds of people who want to see them. ID is about biology. There is no way to tell if what you think is a transitional got to be that way via biological evolution/ genetic heredity.
Nonsense again. Transitionals exist within the fossil record. I suppose to you it is all all coincidence that they occur at the correct stratigrahic levels.
quote:
I ask for an objective test and instead get a very subjective test. Go figure...
Very interesting, since you fail to advance any theory at all. Actually, the obseration of the data is purely objective. The only conclusion that explains the data is evolution.
quote:
Explain the fossil record? What again? Billions of dead organisms buried in sediments.
Wow! Talk about subjective! And such detail!
quote:
We already know in order to be fossilized an organism requires rapid burial. Rapid burial refutes gradualism as a method for producing strata.
We have been through this before. Rapid burial is a plus but it is not necessary. Trace fossils exist even though they have nothing to do with decay of the organism.
quote:
John Paul: I asked you (NN really) to provide a falsification for the alleged evolution of cetaceans from land mammals. Typical of evolutionists you twist it around and provide a non-response.
Actually, I don't have time and it is outside my field to do this. However, you have been given numerous details regarding the fossil record and cetaceans. Do you have an explanation for the fossil record? (other than 'billions of animals got buried,' that is)
quote:
YEC can be falsified. All you need to do is show that natural processes can account for life, the solar system and the universe.
The evidence says just this. There is no need for miracles.
quote:
Perhaps it is YOUR interpretation that can be discarded. I have asked this of you before- what would we use for a reference in order to refute the global flood? Please remember that more than just a flood occured.
The fact that there is no trace of a biblical type flood in the geological record.
quote:
John Paul: The reality is it is your inability to understand what YECs say about life. Linne, the father of our biological classification system, was a Creationist in search of the Created Kind. Was his work science?
Sure. But just think how productive he could have been in this day with evolutionary tools.
quote:
ID uses all of our current knowledge pertaining to design and comes to the conclusion that life was designed.
ID uses incredulity propped up by imagination. How does it explain the fossil record?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 12:48 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 8:00 PM edge has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 66 of 152 (109644)
05-21-2004 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by John Paul
05-20-2004 11:54 PM


Re: Science defined
John Paul writes:
Percy writes:
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.
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.
First, science is a consensus activity engaged in by scientists. You cannot separate the two and sensibly say, "Scientists make that proposition, not science."
Second, of course there are no scientific laws that say life came from non-life. It would make no sense to propose a law that merely encapsulates and restates more fundamental laws. Science doesn't propose laws theories to cover processes already covered by existing laws and theories. What sense would that make?
Life is just matter obeying natural physical laws, and science has no evidence for anything else. Scientific speculations about the origin of life only include processes for which we have evidence. The problem with your perspective, from a scientific standpoint, is that you have no evidence for the mechanism you're proposing.
Added by edit: I don't want to lose sight of the original point I was making, because the thread is "What is Science?" I gave a general definition for evidence that said it was whatever was apparent, either directly or indirectly, to the five senses. You never addressed yourself directly to this definition, though I sense you have no quarrel with it. If you accept this definition, then how can you believe it scientifically valid to propose mechanisms for which you have no evidence?
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 05-21-2004 08:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by John Paul, posted 05-20-2004 11:54 PM John Paul has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 67 of 152 (109677)
05-21-2004 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by John Paul
05-21-2004 12:48 AM


What We Know
John Paul alleges:
quote:
ID uses all of our current knowledge pertaining to design and comes to the conclusion that life was designed.
I guess the following comprises what we know about design:
1) Designers can design each and every form of living organism which exists or has ever existed on Earth but leave no evidence of their own existence.
2) Designers can produce designs that appear to be the products of billions of years of evolution, with telltale signs that they are related by descent to every other design (even those which are extinct) but are actually special creations.
3) Designers can produce designs that are redundantly, unnecessarily complex, but these designs should still be used to testify to the intelligence of these designers.
regards,
Esteban "I Don't Get It" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 12:48 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by AdminNosy, posted 05-21-2004 12:51 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 71 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 7:39 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 68 of 152 (109678)
05-21-2004 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by MrHambre
05-21-2004 12:33 PM


Topic
The "What is Science" title allows for a fair amount of leeway. However, I think this should be taken to your new IDC thread.
In fact, I think copying this particular post to there would be a good idea. It is a pretty clear statement of one set of views of the ID claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by MrHambre, posted 05-21-2004 12:33 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 152 (109680)
05-21-2004 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by John Paul
05-21-2004 12:48 AM


Re: testability
quote:
But transitionals only exist in the minds of people who want to see them. ID is about biology. There is no way to tell if what you think is a transitional got to be that way via biological evolution/ genetic heredity.
I ask for an objective test and instead get a very subjective test. Go figure...
  —JP
I'll give you a test. We shouldn't find a fossil whale that dates earlier than any of the known transitionals from land mammals.
How about another. Retroposons found in the DNA of whales and even toed ungulates is strong support for common ancestory for the two groups.
Nature. 1997 Aug 14;388(6643):666-70.
Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates.
Shimamura M, Yasue H, Ohshima K, Abe H, Kato H, Kishiro T, Goto M, Munechika I, Okada N.
Faculty of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Kanagawa, Japan.
The origin of whales and their transition from terrestrial life to a fully aquatic existence has been studied in depth. Palaeontological, morphological and molecular studies suggest that the order Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises) is more closely related to the order Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates, including cows, camels and pigs) than to other ungulate orders. The traditional view that the order Artiodactyla is monophyletic has been challenged by molecular analyses of variations in mitochondrial and nuclear DNA. We have characterized two families of short interspersed elements (SINEs) that were present exclusively in the genomes of whales, ruminants and hippopotamuses, but not in those of camels and pigs. We made an extensive survey of retropositional events that might have occurred during the divergence of whales and even-toed ungulates. We have characterized nine retropositional events of a SINE unit, each of which provides phylogenetic resolution of the relationships among whales, ruminants, hippopotamuses and pigs. Our data provide evidence that whales, ruminants and hippopotamuses form a monophyletic group.
Any objective measure for a common creator? Or are you finally going to understand how science actually works, through objective evidence and falsifiability?
quote:
I asked you (NN really) to provide a falsification for the alleged evolution of cetaceans from land mammals. Typical of evolutionists you twist it around and provide a non-response. YEC can be falsified. All you need to do is show that natural processes can account for life, the solar system and the universe.
Already been done. Nothing about abiogenesis, Big Bang, or solar system formation violates any known physical law. Therefore, all of these could have come about by natural means.
quote:
I have asked this of you before- what would we use for a reference in order to refute the global flood? Please remember that more than just a flood occured.
Violation of all known physical laws (fast moving plates, increased decay rates for isotopes). That is reference science uses, and has used to falsify the global flood models put forth by creationists. Maybe you should look up "ad hoc hypothesis" sometime. You may then understand why the global flood is scientific folly.
quote:
The reality is it is your inability to understand what YECs say about life. Linne, the father of our biological classification system, was a Creationist in search of the Created Kind. Was his work science?
Out of reverence for his effort, science uses some his classification system. However, science has now narrowed life down to one created kind (LUCA).
quote:
ID uses all of our current knowledge pertaining to design and comes to the conclusion that life was designed.
While denying what the design mechanism was: Evolution. IDists ignore an OBSERVED design mechanism (evolution) and insert a design mechanism that has never been observed, a non-terrestrial designer. They discard evolution because of a religious presupposition, not because of a logical conclusion drawn from evidence. And speaking of "What is Science?", how do we falsify ID?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 12:48 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 7:54 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 70 of 152 (109698)
05-21-2004 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by John Paul
05-21-2004 12:48 AM


Re: testability
John Paul replying to edge writes:
I have asked this of you before- what would we use for a reference in order to refute the global flood? Please remember that more than just a flood occured.
In the past, haven't you distanced yourself from YECs and the flood?
I know someone else has already replied to this part of your post, but I have a different slant. Asking for refutation of global flood claims tells me that you're not using any accepted definition of science. Modern science relies primarily upon the hypothetico-deductive process. It is definitely *not* the case that anything not refuted must be true.
In science, you must have evidence for what you claim. You deduce what happened from the evidence. If you want to argue that there should be a different standard then you should address yourself to that point. What you're instead doing is arguing ID and other specific Creation/Evolution issues, and ignoring the main topic of this thread. Why don't you tell us what *you* think science is?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 12:48 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 7:46 PM Percy has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 152 (109757)
05-21-2004 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by MrHambre
05-21-2004 12:33 PM


Re: What We Know
1) Designers can design each and every form of living organism which exists or has ever existed on Earth but leave no evidence of their own existence.
John Paul:
The evidence of their existence is seen through the microscope, in the mathematical form the natural laws take and many more forms that are discussed in the book Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design.
2) Designers can produce designs that appear to be the products of billions of years of evolution, with telltale signs that they are related by descent to every other design (even those which are extinct) but are actually special creations.
John Paul:
You obviously have no clue what ID is. Ignorance is one thing. Wilfull ignorance is a shame. ID does NOT go against common descent. But you would know that if you had a clue.
3) Designers can produce designs that are redundantly, unnecessarily complex, but these designs should still be used to testify to the intelligence of these designers.
John Paul:
What we now observe is the result of mutations culled by NS on the original design(s). BTW if you or any other human can design life better please do so or consider youself incompotent or stupid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by MrHambre, posted 05-21-2004 12:33 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 152 (109760)
05-21-2004 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Percy
05-21-2004 2:45 PM


Re: testability
Percy:
In the past, haven't you distanced yourself from YECs and the flood?
John Paul:
I have distanced myself from Biblical literalists. I am open to a global flood and YEC is relative. If I thought the evidence points to a 25,000 year old earth I am still a YEC to you.
Science is about finding reality. IOW IF the flood occured science should be able to help us. However there are scenarios in history that happened that science can't tell us about. I don't care if science can tell us about the flood. However that tells me more about the limitations of scientists. If yoiu have a scientific issue with the flood then we can teach it in history class.
I have already posted what I know science is. Read my thread opening post. The city of Troy was once thought to be a myth. However with research of historical documents someone found it. Books have been written explaining the evidence for a global flood. I don't understand why you guys don't read them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 05-21-2004 2:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 05-21-2004 7:50 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 05-21-2004 7:59 PM John Paul has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 152 (109761)
05-21-2004 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by John Paul
05-21-2004 7:46 PM


Paleobotany falsifies the worldwide flood. If you don't agree you're welcome to join the discussion in another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 7:46 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 152 (109763)
05-21-2004 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Loudmouth
05-21-2004 1:33 PM


Re: testability
LM:
While denying what the design mechanism was: Evolution.
John Paul:
Evolution says NOTHING about tghe origins of life. Obviously you and MrH need to read about what ID is and what it isn't.
LM:
IDists ignore an OBSERVED design mechanism (evolution) and insert a design mechanism that has never been observed, a non-terrestrial designer.
John Paul:
Please provide any objective evidence that mutations culled by NS can do what you think it did. I don't have observe the designers of Stonehenge to know it was designed.
LM:
They discard evolution because of a religious presupposition, not because of a logical conclusion drawn from evidence.
John Paul:
That is a lie. I say we are religious because the evidence tells us there is a reason to be, or at the very least that something greater than us existed at one time. Behe is an IDist because of the evidence. Go figure...
LM:
And speaking of "What is Science?", how do we falsify ID?
John Paul:
How many times do I have to post this? ID is falsified once it is shown that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes. Once that is done there is no need to infer a designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Loudmouth, posted 05-21-2004 1:33 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 75 of 152 (109764)
05-21-2004 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by John Paul
05-21-2004 7:46 PM


Re: testability
John Paul writes:
I have already posted what I know science is. Read my thread opening post.
One's opening post is the beginning of the discussion, not the end.
If you check the Forum Guidelines you'll see that members are encouraged to debate in a constructive manner by avoiding repetition, and by moving the discussion forward through the introduction of new information and argument. I've been trying to nudge you in this direction as Percy, but I will switch to Admin mode if that becomes necessary. Ignoring the guidelines may result in a gradual reduction of privileges over time. If you'd like further clarfication, please contact me by email to Admin.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 7:46 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by John Paul, posted 05-26-2004 1:18 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024