Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 76 of 265 (127536)
07-25-2004 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by nator
07-20-2004 1:15 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 07-20-2004 1:15 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by NosyNed, posted 07-25-2004 7:51 PM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 82 by nator, posted 07-26-2004 11:22 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 83 by nator, posted 07-26-2004 11:32 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 77 of 265 (127543)
07-25-2004 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Hangdawg13
07-25-2004 7:27 PM


unconformaties
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-25-2004 7:27 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-27-2004 2:53 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 78 of 265 (127547)
07-25-2004 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Hangdawg13
07-25-2004 6:16 PM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-25-2004 6:16 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 79 of 265 (127549)
07-25-2004 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Hangdawg13
07-25-2004 6:16 PM


Maybe this is on topic
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-25-2004 6:16 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 265 (127646)
07-26-2004 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Hangdawg13
07-25-2004 6:16 PM


quote:
A teacher of a geography may tell his class that there is a country named england. The students accept his word as truth. Later they may encounter evidence that supports this as true. It is the same way with creation science. Although I think I already know the truth, this does not make it impossible to objectively evaluate facts.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-25-2004 6:16 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 81 of 265 (127745)
07-26-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Hangdawg13
07-25-2004 6:16 PM


Science is evidence-driven. That is, theories are developed from the evidence found in nature; they are frameworks for understanding the evidence.
quote:
Right.
By contrast, Creation science begins not with evidence, but with the conclusion; "the bible is factually correct in all things regarding nature".
quote:
Yes.
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:
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.
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:
Since I am biased left and you are biased right, and both of us are basically capable of looking at and honestly evaluating evidence, there will be a competition between our two interpretations of the evidence. Competition is always good for bringing out the truth, which is why we have courts. Right now the Judge and Jury are all biased towards the prosecution and there is no one willing and able to step up to the defense.
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:
I know what you mean by cherry picking, but I think it is unfair to imply that evolutionists do not also do this.
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:
I recognize that much evidence exists that is interpreted to support the evolutionary theory. Those who believe it is true are not morons. But facts can be interpreted in different ways.
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:
Right now, everyone interprets facts to fit the evolutionary model.
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:
Scientists, being so sure that evolution is true, have forgotten that many things are still unproven assumptions.
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:
It is still an unproven assumption that all strata is the result of billions of years of deposition.
No, it is not "assumed", it is inferred from the evidence.
quote:
Some evidence that would confirm this as fact is also based on assumptions.
This makes no sense.
Evidence cannot be based upon "assumptions". Evidence just is.
quote:
For some evidence that would confirm this, an alternative explanation has never been sought. It is my desire as a creation scientist to explore plausible alternative explanations of the evidence.
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....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-25-2004 6:16 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 82 of 265 (127752)
07-26-2004 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Hangdawg13
07-25-2004 7:27 PM


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:
The sea floor should be mostly basalt
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-25-2004 7:27 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 83 of 265 (127755)
07-26-2004 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Hangdawg13
07-25-2004 7:27 PM


What would falsify your hypothesis?
quote:
Proof that the original water chamber could not exist. Proof that atomic decay rates have been constant. Etc.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-25-2004 7:27 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 265 (127793)
07-26-2004 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by jt
07-23-2004 9:19 PM


quote:
am quite sure that creation occured. I am quite sure evolution did'nt. I believe that way because of the evidence I have seen, not because I need to believe it for my religion.
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:
For the record, I wasn't whining about bias. I fully admit(ed) that in many instances, rejection is fully the fault of the creationist attempting to get published. However, if an editor thinks that evolution is a "fact" (which many evolutionists do), they would reject a paper which goes against the "facts" and supported creation.
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:
LM: Option four: Time traveling humans went started the first life on earth.
This is a logical contradiction. Something cannot be its own cause.
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:
Since these are non-naturalistic explanations, they are outside the range of science. Creation science, as I defined it, does not deal with these questions.
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:
After you have decided that there must have been a creation event, you must evaluate the different religions that have creation events. I have done so and believe christianity, as set forth by the Bible, is the true religion. However, that is not in the scope of creation science.
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:
In the most extreme, someone could say that God creatd the world 6,000 years ago to appear as if it was billions of years old. That is not falsifiable.
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:
Anyway, what changes in the earth and DNA would we be able to see? I am open to the idea that creation is falsifiable, it just never occured to me that that would be possible.
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:
Anyway, what changes in the earth and DNA would we be able to see? I am open to the idea that creation is falsifiable, it just never occured to me that that would be possible.
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:
You are assuming that because someone is trying to disprove something, they must be practicing deciet, or just plain stupidity. That is not the case.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jt, posted 07-23-2004 9:19 PM jt has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 85 of 265 (127986)
07-27-2004 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by NosyNed
07-25-2004 7:51 PM


Re: unconformaties
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by NosyNed, posted 07-25-2004 7:51 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-27-2004 2:57 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 88 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2004 3:13 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 90 by nator, posted 07-27-2004 10:00 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 92 by Loudmouth, posted 07-27-2004 4:28 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 86 of 265 (127988)
07-27-2004 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hangdawg13
07-27-2004 2:53 AM


Re: unconformaties
BTW, I'm sorry to all others for not replying, I just don't feel like continuing in this debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-27-2004 2:53 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2004 3:03 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 89 by nator, posted 07-27-2004 9:42 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 87 of 265 (127990)
07-27-2004 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Hangdawg13
07-27-2004 2:57 AM


Re: unconformaties
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-27-2004 2:57 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 88 of 265 (127992)
07-27-2004 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hangdawg13
07-27-2004 2:53 AM


Tossing around
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-27-2004 2:53 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 89 of 265 (128042)
07-27-2004 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Hangdawg13
07-27-2004 2:57 AM


Re: unconformaties
quote:
BTW, I'm sorry to all others for not replying, I just don't feel like continuing in this debate.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-27-2004 2:57 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 90 of 265 (128045)
07-27-2004 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hangdawg13
07-27-2004 2:53 AM


Re: unconformaties
quote:
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.
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-27-2004 2:53 AM Hangdawg13 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