|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 779 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Hangdawg, let's test your hypothesis. You propose that a worldwide flood covered the entire earth 5,000 years ago, killing everything on the planet except for a few people and animals on a boat. Basically. You might say the meat of my hypothesis is that there was a flood that covered the whole pre-flood earth. The pre-flood earth had a roughly 10 mile thick uppermost crust separated by a chamber of water from the mostly basalt floor. The water pressure was increasing. A rupture in the crust caused a subsequent chain of events to occur.
Based upon your hypothesis alone, What are your predictions of what we will find when we go out to look at the evidence in nature? What should we find if your hypothesis is reflective of the evidence? The sea floor should be mostly basalt and that the continents should have a mostly granite base covered with layered sedimentary strata. There should be evidence of liquefaction. Basement rock should exhibit mostly vertical activity, while sedimentary rock should exhibit mostly horizontal activity. Mountains and volcanoes would form where plates first ground to a halt. Some water may still be found deep under mountain ranges. Edges of hyroplates should show more evidence of erosion and 'flutter'. Most major unconformities should be mostly at the bottom and top of the geologic column. Due to liquefaction lenses certain anomalies will likely form within the column. The removal of enough HP material should cause underlying material to spring up beneath the original crack in the hydroplates and the other side of the world should be slightly sunken. And I could go on repeating my basic understanding of the theory, but you get the idea. I think Brown has made about 30 or so unique and much more specific predictions of what future investigation should find. Some of these have been verified recently.
What would falsify your hypothesis? Proof that the original water chamber could not exist. Proof that atomic decay rates have been constant. Etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Most major unconformities should be mostly at the bottom and top of the geologic column. Is this worth taking to another thread? Let me know if you're willing to explain what you mean by this. Perhaps we should go back to
Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings! We can reopen it if you want. Then you can explain the magnetic reversals and their correlation with the current rate of spreading among many other things left out of your predictions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
There have been fossil falsifications of the evolutionary theory found... I'm interested in seeing some examples.
This is how science should work. Search for ALL possible explanations of the facts. My belief that eventually explanations consistent with and supportive of a recent creation and flood will surface is no different than your belief that the same will happen for the TOE. Unfortunately this seems to be the rallying cry of the creation "scientist"... what science SHOULD be. But it isn't, and it's your tough luck if you do not like where the evidence is leading investigations. While it is true that anyone can hold on to their secret fantasy "possibility", it is errant to believe science is served by treating all "possibilities" as equal. Right now evidence heavily supports Evo and not Creo. Thus Evo is not just possible, but most probable (even if mechanisms remain relatively open). Do you really believe we should be allocating resources to Egyptian creation myths, Greek myths, Native American myths, Space Alien myths?
I know what you mean by cherry picking, I don't. According to a literal interpretation of the Bible all virgins may be identified by having intact hymens, but this is not the case. Since there is this clear scientific flaw within the Bible, particularly with regard to a designed component of one of his creations, it is also possible that factual statements in other parts of the bible are also flawed. Just a reminder that you also ditched another debate, and I am waiting for your concession. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
There have been fossil falsifications of the evolutionary theory found, but once found they somehow no longer become falsifications or are explained away. It's as if the evolutionary theory itself evolves and adapts to fill the niche that exists in everyone's mind: the need to understand our origins. The theory certainly has evolved. As we have more information (genetics being a biggy); better tools such as computer modeling and new evidence the theory has expanded and become much more detailed. The basic theory as propounded by Darwin hasn't changed all that much. This is partially because his level of detail was rather low. That is, he didn't really give more than what we, today, see as an overview in which the details fit. Perhaps the only detail he gave that has changed is that the rate of evolution is both constant and slow. If there are any apparent "fossil falsifications" found they might amount to 10 out of 100,000's of fossils found. If that is the right ration and the odd ones are not locked down tight what would we do? Perhaps, explain away is what would be done. Are the explanations any good? Meanwhile there have been powerful cooberating evidence found (the DNA patterns is a biggy) and these are not at all expected or explained by any other ideas. Would you like to start a thread on the falsifications? HangDawg, I don't know if you had this mentioned to you. There are a lot of creationist sources on the web that are dishonest. You might want to figure out how you would figure out when you are being lied to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Allegedly. What if we had a teacher who taught his class all about England: with its icy winters, tall mountains, sherpas, llama's and monks. The students may still accept his word, because he is the teacher, and they the students. But when the students go out into the world and discover that England is not, in fact, Tibet, they will have to face a choice: believe according to their own experience, or beleive according to the faith they had in the teacher. And that is why creation science is no science at all. Its still blind, dogmatic faith and eyes tight shut.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Science is evidence-driven. That is, theories are developed from the evidence found in nature; they are frameworks for understanding the evidence. quote: By contrast, Creation science begins not with evidence, but with the conclusion; "the bible is factually correct in all things regarding nature". quote: This makes Creation 'science' revalatory in nature, not evidence-driven. They believe thay can know the conclusion before they ever even look at any evidence. This is backwards to the way real science is conducted. quote: Sorry, how science "should" work, according to your preference and religious bias, is not how it DOES work. Also, you do know that the Theory of Evolution is among the most supported theories in all of science, don't you? It is quite ridiculous for you to say that it isn't supported by the evidence. You can only be completely ignoring the evidence, or you have been lied to.
quote: You are under the mistaken impression the Creationism has any scientific merit in the least. That's the point, Hangdawg. Creationism is just religious dogma, dressed up in a lab coat and holding a beaker, trying to look impressive and educated to people ignorant of real science. It doesn't follow any of the rules of scientific inquiry, so it has no clout or power in scientific matters, any more than Astrology, Dowsing, or Alien Abduction claims do. You also still do not understand that the theory of Evolution has been tested millions of times and has survived those tests. Every time we find a fossil in the layer the Theory predicted it would be in, the theory survived another test. Every time the predicted (through morphology) evolutionary relationship between species is confirmed with genetics, the theory is strengthened. etc. Science works by doubting, Hangdawg. If you do not think that the ToE has been tested enough to trust it's validity, you must also pretty much mistrust all scientific theories, because not many of them have been tested as much as the ToE.
quote: Show me any scientific paper from the professional literature that does not bend over backwards to include all the ways their conclusions could be explained in other ways. The peer-review process is specifically designed to weed out this kind of sloppy/dishonest research.
quote: Sure, but to ignore the accumulated work of hundreds of thousands of scientists over the last 150 years because you think that sometime, in the future, all of it will be shown to be wrong, AND your non-scientific religious creation myth will be shown to be correct, seems silly, willfully ignorant and narrow minded.
quote: Nope, that's not how science is done, as I have explained. I will do it again... The facts/evidence found either fit the predictions of the theory/explanation or they do not. See, the predictions are made ahead of time, before the evidence is found. If the evidence fulfills the prediction, then the theory is strengthened. If the evidence contradicts the prediction, the theory is shown to have some problems.
quote: Nope, that is not how science is done. Each prediction is a test of the theory. There are no assumptions, only provisional acceptance that the ToE is the best current explanation of the evidence. ...unless you are expecting scientists to continue to seriously doubt that which has been shown to hold up under millions of repeated tests for the last 150 years. Science could never progress if we, for example, continued to test the premise that germs cause disease. We "assume" that the ToE is accurte in the same way we "assume" that the Germ Theory of Disease or the Atomic Theory of Matter are accurate.
quote: No, it is not "assumed", it is inferred from the evidence.
quote: This makes no sense. Evidence cannot be based upon "assumptions". Evidence just is.
quote: You do realize that this already happened 200 years ago, right? It always astounds me how little most Creationists know about the history of their own movement. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6040/flood21.htm
Flood geology was considered and tested by early-nineteenth-century geologists. They never believed that a single flood had produced all fossil-bearing strata, but they did accept and then disprove a claim that the uppermost strata contained evidence for a single, catastrophic, worldwide inundation. The science of geology arose in nations that were glaciated during the great ice ages, and glacial deposits are similar to the products of floods. During the 1820s, British geologists carried out an extensive empirical program to test whether these deposits represented the action of a single flood. The work was led by two ministers, the Reverend Adam Sedgwick (who taught Darwin his geology) and the Reverend William Buckland. Buckland initially decided that all the "superficial gravels" (as these deposits were called) represented a single event, and he published his Reliquiae diluvianae (Relics of the Flood) in 1824. However, Buckland's subsequent field work proved that the superficial gravels were not contemporaneous but represented several different events (multiple ice ages, as we now know). Geology proclaimed no worldwide flood but rather a long sequence of local events. In one of the great statements in the history of science, Sedgwick, who was Buckland's close colleague in both science and theology, publicly abandoned flood geology -- and upheld empirical science -- in his presidential address to the Geological Society of London in 1831.
'Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.... 'There is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Let's take your predictions one at a time.
Based upon your hypothesis alone, What are your predictions of what we will find when we go out to look at the evidence in nature? What should we find if your hypothesis is reflective of the evidence? quote: Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
What would falsify your hypothesis? quote: No, that's not good enough. What is the specific evidence that would falsify your theory? What, specifically, would constitute evidence that the original water chamber could not have existsed? What, specifically, would constitute evidence that atomic decay rates have been constant? etc.? IOW, in science you can't just say "If I'm proven wrong, I'm wrong." Potential falsifications for the ToE, for example, are things like; Finding fossils sorted by density rather than by predicted Evolutionary history. If morphological trees of life did not match genetic trees of life. etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: If this is so, then you should be able to point to a scientist that came to the conclusion of a 6,000 year old earth without ever having read or heard about Genesis. Unfortunately, I have never been able to find that person. Perhaps you could start a thread that talks about specific points of evolutionary theory that you have a problem with. My experience with creationists is that they only rely on creationist sites for information pertaining to evolution. This is like learning about christianity from a muslim fundamentalist website. Also, I have often found that creationists have very little knowledge in the biological sciences. This isn't an insult, but it is rather presumptious to decide that thousand and thousands of scientists are wrong, after spending years researching and years in school. You must be familiary with quite a bit of biology, geology, and physics before anything really starts to make sense.
quote: Editor's won't reject a paper because it goes against the accepted paradigm. In fact, quite the opposite. If they are able to publish a paper that falsifies one of the most heavily supported theories in science, they will actually advertise the article since it will increase sales and increase the prestige of the journal. However, the falsification must be grounded in objective observations. This is the problem that creationists have, expecting their theories to be accepted on faith without support of evidence, or accepted in the face of contradicting evidence. This is the same reason an astronomy journal will not publish a paper on the earth being the center of the solar system, because the theory has been falsified by the evidence.
quote: But it is possible, which is all you asked for. It is just as possible as a supernatural being created a whole universe 6,000 years ago from scratch that looks to be billions of years old by every scrap of evidence that we look at. It seems that the only evidence for a literal Bible is a literal Bible. IOW, your run into the same logical contradiction by using the Bible to describe YEC.
quote: Young Earth Creationism is also a non-naturalistic explanation, and so it too is outside the range of science. YECism requires miracles that go against the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry. Creation science deals with a diety that is not testable by science, a creation event that defies scientific laws and principles, and explanations that are falsified by scientific observations. Creation science can't get more non-natural than that.
quote: Show me how creation science has scientifically ruled out other creation myths. I dare you. My contention is that creation science assumes the conclusion (Genesis is literal fact) before looking at any of the evidence. They also automatically rule out other creation myths, not because of evidence but because of their religious convictions (as is shown by the oath that creation scientists sign). Please explain to me why other creation myths are outside the purview of creation science. From what I have read, creation scientists claim that evolutionists are ignoring other possibilities, but it seems that creation science is doing the same. Would it be accurate to claim that evolution only ignores one more god that creation science does?
quote: Any statement that is not falsifiable by objectively measured evidence is not a scientific statement. I could state that the earth was created last thursday, and God placed all of our memories in our head. This has just as much support as anything you have put forward. So why shouldn't we accept my Last Thursdayism Theory?
quote: Every layer of soil is an observed change in the geologic record. Every living species holds the changes in DNA that their ancestors accrued. These separate, independent variables (fossil record and DNA of living species) fit perfectly into the theories of evolution. Every fossil that is dug up, and every stretch of DNA sequenced, is a challenge to the theory of evolution. You need look no farther than these two things. However, creationism tries it's best to downplay the corroboration between these variables. Instead, if they were doing science, they would try to falsify evolution by using the very same methods that are used to support it. Let's step away from evolution and look at another theory within the sciences, the theory of gravity. Years back, scientists mapped out the orbit of Neptune. They found that the orbit was not consistent with the theory of gravity. The test was this, either the theory was wrong or there was another planet that was affecting the orbit of Neptune. Guess what, they found Pluto. This is how science is tested, by finding anamolies and testing them. Creationism does the opposite, they see the faulty orbit of Neptune and proclaim that God is in control. This stifles all research, and it keeps us from finding out what is really going on in nature.
quote: Good, it is quite refreshing to here this from a creationist. However, also keep in mind that I am not trying to separate you from your faith, only point out that your faith shouldn't rest on man's translation of God's word. God wrote another book directly, it is called Nature and from it we can directly read HOW he created without being bogged down by the scientific ignorance of the biblical authors.
quote: In every creationist argument there is deceit. They willfully cover up falsifying evidence, something a real scientist never does. Just a personal note, a paper I recently wrote directly contradicts the hypotheses of a competing lab. However, instead of ignoring their paper I directly reference it and mention it in my arguments. I show why our hypotheses (our=my lab group) are more accurate and how our experiments shed light on the mechanisms better than the other lab groups. This is how science is done, by directly confronting other hypotheses and theories with POSITIVE evidence using methods that are repeatable and evidence that is objective. Creationism does the opposite. They ignore falsifying evidence (eg refusing to admit that there are transitional fossils) while constructing theories on zero evidence, and relying on blind faith for acceptance. I will say this, creationism can be scientific. However, in doing so they will have to admit that their theories have been falsified. Without the support of blind faith, and without the ability to put forth theories without evidence, their "scientific" movement would come to a screeching halt. Evolution attempts to falsify itself on a daily basis. Every fossil is a potential falsification. Every DNA sequence is a possible falsification. Every biological observation is a possible falsification. What creationism fails to understand is just how testable evolution really is. Or perhaps they do realize this, and instead use realms of evidence (unfalsifiable evidence) instead of following the scientific method, a realm where they have already lost.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 779 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Is this worth taking to another thread? Let me know if you're willing to explain what you mean by this. Yes, yes... I know my theory is drastically incomplete. After all, I'm 19 and a sophomore in college with very little background in this stuff. I'm more or less tossing ideas around and seeing what fits, and seeing what the evo reaction is. I only wish that everyone would do the same. It seems like the evolutionary theory is the only one that gets tossed around in anyone's head, so it's not surprising that the evolutionary theory is the best developed theory. I am not saying it is wrong or should not be considered by scientists as a valid theory. I am just saying it would be nice if there was some competition. I have not been able to research and hypothesize and calculate all the explanations to every detail. I mean evos have had millions and millions of man-hours put into their theory, so I cannot hope to compete, but if I find that I have a good reason to research the HP theory, I just might do it and eventually attempt to provide some competition. Then again, I may never find a good reason. So, no, we don't have to re-open the thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 779 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
BTW, I'm sorry to all others for not replying, I just don't feel like continuing in this debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
BTW, I'm sorry to all others for not replying, I just don't feel like continuing in this debate. Yea, there are a lot of things I don't understand or "get". One is the strange way that someone like WT thinks but a bigger one is the idea of having things shaking a world view, even a little bit. It seems to me that time is needed to digest things a bit. Perhaps just moderating for awhile would allow you to gather more information and have time to think about things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I only wish that everyone would do the same. I spent most of a year in a physics reseach lab. The tossing around of ideas is a big coffee time game. More so than bridge, chess or go even. (well, that varies) It is an enormously exciting and entertaining environment. These are smart people. (and I'm not including me in that: I brought the average IQ down). You think that you can generate nutsy, outlandish ideas? Ha! You have to know a lot to really do a job of that. However, these folks can also poke a major hole in almost all of the speculations before the coffee cools. The HP idea is one that doesn't last as long as it takes sugar to disolve in hot coffee. You seem to think that no other ideas are considered. It is true that one doesn't go back over 150 + years of history but if there is a hole in the basics there are people in the field who will find it. I'm figuring the biolgists are just as smart as the physicists. There is no hope of someone without a deep knowledge of the current paradigm being able to find the holes in it. When relativity is replaced it won't be by some crackpot it will come from a young, smart relativist who understands it better than Einstein did. Any major shift in biology will be made by biolgists. Others simply don't know where to start. They don't understand the current ideas well enough to know where the real problems are. All they seem to do is poke away at stawmen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I'm very sorry you are giving up at this point, Hangdawg. I have got to tell you that over the years I have gotten to just about this point with several other Creationists in discussing the fundamental differences in methodology between sciecne and Creationism, and all of them, like you, have gotten just to the verge of understanding, only to pull back into their comfort zone again. All I can do is urge you to not be afraid of knowledge. Surely any God worth worshipping wouldn't be afraid of you learning the scientific method, right? I of course would be very interested in continuing our discussion about the differences in methodology. I am willing to drop the discussions of specific evidence for now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: It really isn't the "tossing around of ideas in heads" that has so strengthened the Theory of Evolution. It is the millions of predictions of the theory that have been borne out that has strengthened it. Those are the tests of the theory. Every scientific theory continues to be tested, all the time.
quote: There have long been several competing theories in the past, such as those of Linnaeus, Bouffon, Couvier, and Lamarck, but those other theories were shown to be lacking compared to the ToE, because Darwin was the first to provide a mechanism for change. http://www.aboutdarwin.com/literature/Pre_Dar.html We have no competing theories for the Germ Theory of Disease or the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System, or the Atomic Theory of Matter. Why do you not focus on any of these theories and hope that they will someday be found to match your literal Biblical interpretation? After all, all of them contradict various parts of the Bible just like Evolution does.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024