Applying Science to Past Events

quote:

---

This is a long reach.
The looking at older objects and distant objects in way has been demostrated to be testing the past or furture boiling point of water.

---

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:

---

In order for this verification of past or future boiling points you are requirering the reader to accept an assumption that these older and distant objects are what they are even though they themselves are just an interpretation.

---

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?

quote:

---

First point. I mean other means of evedence gathering and conclusions. i don't mean poor scientific method.

---

What are these "other means of evidence gathering"?

quote:

---

Now you say everyone looking at the glass is the repeatability of a test. It isn't. The people are just witsessing glass on the floor. They are not seeing the event to why its there.

---

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:

---

You are saying THE conclusion (after observation) to a prediction is a test of a hypothesis.

---

If I am reading you right, the answer is no.Remember the steps?Observation----> Hypothesis----> Predictions-----> Test----> ConclusionThe 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:

---

In the meanwhile I would say the analagy fails because you are predicting nicks and glass from this PARTICULAR ball action. And yet only successully observing nicks and glass.

---

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.

quote:

---

CAREFULL NOW as I say this.
Only a prediction of the nicks etc being from this PARTICULAR ball would be a prediction of the hypothesis.
Your prediction was only that the nicks etc are from a baseball.

---

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.

quote:

---

I accept and said so that that boiling water so tested as you said is indeed a test of hypothesis. Agreed

​

Now test boiling water in 1066A.D.

---

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.

quote:

---

This has been a good example of where we disagree with you guys on when the scientific method has been applied.

---

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.

quote:

---

My objection has not been addressed and if not then this analagy should be pulled as support for your position.

---

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.

quote:

---

This is why I do not ignore the data. I just do not take it as an end all.

---

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.

quote:

---

Just a nitpick... that's a bad example, because celcius is defined around the freezing and boiling points of water at one atmosphere Or at least, it originally was; perhaps they've quantified it with some more absolute physical constants (after all, "one atmosphere" changes).

---

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.

quote:

---

That is mis-understanding what I said.

---

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?

quote:

---

Faith comes in different levels. Some things require more faith than others. It all depends how much you know about it. Thousands of years ago, humans used to pray to the sun god, and have faith that he would rise in the morning. This took a lot of faith on the part of the human.

---

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:

---

But then one day I recieved a baptism of the Holy spirit. Now it is no longer by faith that I believe in him.

---

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:

---

So you see, I have many reasons for believing in God. They may be subjestive to you, but they aren't to me.

---

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:

---

Whatever way you choose to live your life is between you and God, and I would respect it. That won't stop me from sharing.

---

I respect your religious life as well, and I hope that comes through in my posts.

quote:

---

NO I don't understand how the testing occured!
I don't see how tentatively thru the scientific method that water boiled at 100 degrees in 1066A.D.!

---

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:

---

You didn't react to the baseball thing so is the pennant mine?

---

Could you give me a mssg #? I might have missed it.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-23-2004 04:10 PM

quote:

---

I hope you understand I do not discount evolution completely.
I do believe we were created, just how, remains a mystery.

---

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.

quote:

---

Oh yes they are. It was made very clear to me from the very first thread I participated in, that evolution is fact. That is the belief of some I suppose.

---

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:

---

As far as God is concerned, that is the driving force why I came in here to begin with. I am here to share with you that it is easy to find God. You just have to look for him, just like digging up a dinosaur.

---

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.

quote:

---

And how does evolution attempt to explain how intelligent life came from non-intelligent life. Please don't repeat the theory.

---

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

RiverRat,If religion and science are different, then why do you equate them as both being based on the same faith?

quote:

---

Just curious, how is it that you looked for 20 years and found nothing?
What religion? Not that it matters a whole lot, because you don't need a religion to find him, but a religion could keep you from him.

---

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.