|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Applying Science to Past Events | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Could you then tell me how the chemical and physical properties of water could be changed between here and distant stars but every other atom or molecule is unaffected?
quote: Are you then saying that distant objects in the sky are an illusion? If they are real, then why can't we test them like we do our own sun?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: What are these "other means of evidence gathering"?
quote: No one saw the event, that is what we are forming the hypotheses to explain. Also, the fact that other people OBSERVE the same thing I do (ie the glass is inside, the baseball mark on the wall) means that my observations are repeatable and reliable. Therefore, the observations adhere to the scientific method which requires repeatability.
quote: If I am reading you right, the answer is no. Remember the steps? Observation----> Hypothesis----> Predictions-----> Test----> Conclusion The test is to see if the data (ie the mark on the wall and the placement of the glass) fits the predictions. The predictions are a result of the hypothesis. The conclusion is that the hypothesis is accurate with the data collected so far, that is the hypothesis passed the tests.
quote: Absolutely correct. That is why hypotheses, even if they pass numerous tests, are held tentatively. Future tests could show my hypothesis to be incorrect, but the data up to this point, using the scientific method, supports my hypothesis. To show that the hypothesis is wrong you would have to run tests to differentiate between a ball causing the broken glass versus another object. For instance, we could reconstruct the pane of glass somewhat like reconstructing a jigsaw puzzle. If the baseball caused the window to break then there should be a roundish area made up of small pieces where the ball struck the pain of glass. What happens if we find an oblong section that resembles a crowbar? Well, my hypothesis is in serious doubt. A robber could have smashed the window in and the ball on the floor could be a coincidence. Again, it is only through making predictions and testing those predictions can we come to any sort of conclusion. Let me ask you this question. What if I claimed that the Bible is just a bunch of words? What if I claimed that anyone getting information out of the Bible was just an untestable interpretation? I would be wrong, wouldn't I? The scientific method is used to INTERPRET DATA. Without interpretation all we have is a bunch of data that doesn't mean anything. The human mind interprets data constantly every second of every day. The scientific method was formed to RELIABLY interpret data. That is, to remove subjectivity by relying on predictions that can be tested with objective data. Think of it as the difference between the high jump and gymnastics. In the high jump you can't complain to a judge if you missed your height because your distance is objective, it is the same for everyone. However, in gymnastics there is an almost total reliance on subjective scoring. In gymnastics, you can complain to a judge because you didn't recieve the score you think you deserved. However, creationists try to obscure this difference when they use subjective criteria (eg, "it just looks designed", "it just makes sense to me") and pretend like they are using the same evidence as scientists. Also, you are pretending like you can do away with the scientific method for past events not because it is faulty but because it says things you don't like. If science was ableto confirm a global flood, would you still claim that the scientific method was faulty? I would guess not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: And again, this is why science is tentative. By finding the nicks and other evidence this reduces the tentativity of the hypothesis, but it doesn't ABSOLUTELY PROVE that the baseball in question was the culprit. This is a major point. The scientific method is not set up to absolutely prove something 100%. If there were some oddity about the baseball, such as a strange stitching pattern or the like, then I might be able to test for that as well. I might also look for glass shards impregnated into the ball that would support the baseball as the culprit. The reality is that I will never no for sure since no one witnessed it, but by using the scientific method I am able to come to a conclusion of what PROBABLY happened. You seem to be under the impression that I am trying to prove (ie 100% sure) that the baseball broke the window. This is not true. I am trying to support the hypothesis that the baseball did it. I do this through making predictions and testing them. I can also make predictions of what SHOULD NOT be there if the baseball caused the window to break. This is the same method that is used in courts of law, using evidence to find guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT after unwitnessed crimes are committed. The scientific method allows us to remove reasonable doubt, and it also creates predictions that would allow the convicted to be exonerated later in life such as DNA evidence that has freed numerous prisoners. Absolulte proof is only used in math and alcohol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The boiling point of a liquid is a physical constant. Therefore, testing boiling water today is a test of the boiling temp in 1066 AD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, this is where we part company. We can test the reliance of physical constants on the atomic structure of molecules. The boiling point is one of those constants and it depends on the properties of atoms. We have tested for differing atomic characteristics in galaxies far far away, and yet none have shown a departure from those physical constants. Therefore, we have tested the boiling point of water in the past, as it relies on the physical characteristics of atoms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Water on earth can not be directly observed boiling at 100 celsius at 1 atmosphere in the year 1066 AD. This is understood and agreed upon. However, whether or not water boiled at this temperature can be tested. Therefore, we can state, tentatively through the scientific method, that water boiled at 100 degrees celcius in the year 1066 AD. This fulfills your requirements in that we can scientifically test whether or not water boiled at 100 degress celcius in the past even in the absence of direct eye witness accounts. Do you understand how that testing occurs? If not, I can go over it again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Data is the only reliable thing we have. What else are we supposed to go on, tingly feelings in our gut? Let's pretend you are going to jump off of a building and someone says that you are crazy. Would you reply "I don't ignore the data, but it isn't the end all"? I would hope not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Just to nitpick back, when celcius is measured by a thermometer it uses the expansion of the liquid inside of the thermometer. Therefore, if using a thermometer, the boiling point of water is independent of the measurement. There are also other ways of measuring temperature which are also independent of the boiling point of water. I could use Kelvin, but the Kelvin scale uses the same increments of temperature as Celcius, so it really isn't a qualitative advantage in that respect. Also, atmospheric pressures do change over time. However, I am using the SCI definition which can be related to mm of Hg, PSI, Pascals, milliBars, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Um, I would expect that you would clear up the misunderstanding? Do you think that we should look to things other than data? If data is not the end all, what is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, it took religious faith. It took faith in the existence of an unseen god and the assumption that the unseen god controlled the sun. Contrast this with a scientific explanation. The evidence for natural mechanisms that govern the sun rising are observable and testable by our five senses. The evidence is not invisible but plainly visible. This does not require religious faith. However, it does take trust that our theories are accurate, and this trust is gained through observable evidence. Let's use an analogy. Pretend that someone has been indicted on a first degree murder case where the murder was not witnessed by anyone by the victim and the person who committed the crime. Now, what type of evidence do we use? Do we bring in a shaman who claims to speak to gods that reveal the truth or do we rely on forensic science to peer into the past through emperical data such as DNA and fingerprints? According to you, they both require faith and therefore are on equal ground. I claim that a technique using emperical data is much more reliable and is trustworthy. Do you understand the difference between trustworthy and blind faith? There is quite a difference.
quote: How do you know that the feelings you have are even tied to a supernatural deity? You can't, and therefore it is still faith. I am not saying that it is wrong to believe in God, only that it is not on the same level as the evidence used for science. I can not experience your feelings, and therefore it can not be confirmed in an objective matter. Things that can not be confirmed between separate observers is not trustworthy in a scientific sense.
quote: Surely you can see the contradiction in these two sentences (and the one that follows). For something to be objective it has to be confirmed by more than one person.
quote: I respect your religious life as well, and I hope that comes through in my posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Observation: The boiling point of water is a direct result of intermolecular forces that are constant between all molecules of water. These forces are a result of atomic interactions. For these forces to change the atomic forces and atomic properties of oxygen and hydrogen have to change as well. Hypothesis: The boiling point of water at one atmosphere varied in the past. Test: We can look at distant stars to see if atoms behave as they do on earth. Since light takes time to travel across large distances, we can look into the history of atomic characteristics. Therefore, if atoms acted differently in the past it would be detectable by looking at distant objects, such as stars. Observation: Distant objects containing atoms act the same as they do on earth. They have the same characteristics that pertain to the boiling point of water. Conclusion: The hypothesis fails. In order to conclude that boiling points changed in the past we would have had to observe changes in molecular and atomic properties. Those observations were not made. In fact, the opposite observation has been made, the constancy of atomic characteristics. Anything else? Added in edit:
quote: Could you give me a mssg #? I might have missed it. This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-23-2004 04:10 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: I hope that you understand that no one here is saying that the theory of evolution is an absolute fact. All science is tentative, and we only trust a theory as far as the evidence will allow us. The less evidence, the more tentative we are in trusting the theory. Given the heaps of evidence supporting evolution it is trusted to a high degree. However, this doesn't mean that scientists accept it as absolute fact. I would characterize scientists as accepting evolution with a high degree of certainty, but not completely. This is in stark contrast to religious faith, where belief in a deity is absolute in the absence of empirical support. If God's existence were as easy as finding fossils, then what reason would there be for faith? If God could be demonstrated in a test tube, then why would there be any other religion than christianity? Humans tend to TRUST things they can touch and test while they have blind faith in things that defy touching and testability. This is why science is a different endeavour than religion, they rely on two different mind sets and two different sets of evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The FACT of evolution is that organisms change over time. I was very careful in using the phrase "the theory of evolution". The Theory part of the equation postulates mechanisms that caused the observed changes. It is this part that is never considered to be absolute fact by any scientist, any scientist worth talking to that is.
quote: I tried for 20 years, didn't find him. I am glad that you have found something to live for, but don't expect everyone to have the same experience as you. Also, God and fossils are two different things and equating the two is not going to change the fact that religious revelation is different than scientific evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Intelligence is directly proportional to brain size. Therefore, evolution explains the emergence of human intelligence as a result of an increase in brain size. One of those steps was a mutation that weakened the jaw muscles. This allows the cranium to increase as it no longer has to support larger jaw muscles.Reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/... {Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-24-2004 05:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
RiverRat,
If religion and science are different, then why do you equate them as both being based on the same faith?
quote: Quick answer, we don't want the topic to drift. I was part of a non-denominational christian church. Kind of a cross between Baptist and Nazarene. What I found was a group of very good people that all believed something I didn't. I went to church because I was expected to go as part of my family. Remember when you discovered Santan Claus was not real? That is about the same experience I went through in my teens. Any further discussion should probably go to another thread.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024