|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Verifying truth in science - is evolution faith-based? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
. The problem is you can only infer the verification you seek when you start out with a given set of assumptions. There are always assumptions. The less the better, and the more verified the validity of your assumptions the better. I contend that macroevolutionary assumptions have been tested and verified as often as is possible, and their validity is fairly certain. This is in contradiction to YEC assumptions which are in big trouble.
It's a problem of seperating the evidence from the theory. No, its a problem of developing an explanatory framework (theory) that best explains the evidence.
Reasonable doubt is the key phrase. I've seen no evidence to remove it as of yet The point is that there is no reasonable doubt about macroevolution, it has so much evidence...every test that has been thrown at it confirms that it happened. It requires FAITH that it didn't, not that it did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
When you say the YEC position has been falsified, I'm certain you refer to a creationist model that I don't. I don't refer to any model. I simply can say as FACT that the Universe is NOT young. One clear example can be found in this thread.
If religion is based on faith, science is based on assumptions...I say 6 of one half-dozen of the other. You might, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I said
The big difference is in how Science is done as opposed to Religion. Religion starts with answers. Science starts with questions. Science does not require Faith, Religion does. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garrett Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 111 From: Dallas, TX Joined: |
If a diety created life, how would you expect it to look. The fact that your interpretation of the design of things leads you to believe that evolution is fact has no bearing on what God's design would look like. I would, for instance, expect homology within many organisms if they all had a common creator...viola!
Of course, you'd turn around and say this evidence supports evolution. Same evidence, different interpretation. All of the evidence you put forth could be equally interpreted in a creationist framework. If something can be equally applied to 2 theories, it isn't valid to suggest it verifies one of them. For instance, you state that the particular genetic differences between related species are a record of macroevolutionary change. Sure, that's possible. But, again, if God created distinct "kinds" (closer to order or family I would guess) that had the ability to adapt to their environment for survival...this evidence would also fit in that framework. It shows adaptation, but doesn't provide proof of a change from the bird "kind" to the dinosaur "kind". You HAVE to make an assumption to even begin interpreting. Faith and worldview are inseperable. I do understand uniformitarianism to mean what you stated. You left out the Uniformitarianism with a capital U though ( religious philosophy)...no point in leaving any out. In all seriousness, I do understand the terms (from a scientific standpoint) because I've actually spent time researching theories opposing mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: ...and the genetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garrett Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 111 From: Dallas, TX Joined: |
Again...you can only draw conlusions and assumptions from evidence that the earth is not young. I can list dozens of dating methods that point to a young earth...it's just scientists don't use those. It's interesting that the evos are allowed to stray off topic but not I. When I want to talk about dating methods I'll meander over yonder.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
and the genetics. I just meant that the evidence seems to be of a kind in which we say, if evolution is true, such-and-such has to be the case. Such-and-such is in fact the case. But this "such-and-such" is not precise enough to be called "predictive" exactly. It's not like proving the theory of relativity by calculating where a heavenly body should be at a given point in time according to relativity calculations, and then that heavenly body shows up right at the predicted time--which I heard was done. It's not that type of evidence. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-21-2006 03:20 PM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-21-2006 03:22 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garrett Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 111 From: Dallas, TX Joined: |
I won't ask you to give me evidence of YEC assumptions that are in big trouble, but I'm certain your YEC assumptions aren't what mine would be to begin with. It's hard to ridicule what someone believes when you don't know what that even is. I'll make time to get to a YEC topic, or set one up if there isn't one....but this topic is interesting to me at the moment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garrett Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 111 From: Dallas, TX Joined: |
Hey...an objective thinker...gotta love it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: It would depend upon the diety. Right now it looks as though the diety doesn't know what he's doing most of the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: There is a thread in which I am asking for definitions of "kind" that I just started which I would be delighted for you to join.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Excellent. There are many, many threads in the Dates and Dating forum in which you can list these dozens of methods that scientists don't use. I look forward to learning about them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I won't ask you to give me evidence of YEC assumptions that are in big trouble, but I'm certain your YEC assumptions aren't what mine would be to begin with How about: The genesis account is a literal history.
hard to ridicule what someone believes when you don't know what that even is Yes it is, I'm not ridiculing anything here. I'm talking about what Faith is, and whether or not macroevolution requires it. My position is that faith is required when there is no way to verify a conclusion and that macroevolution has many independent ways to verify it therefore it doesn't require faith. This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 21-February-2006 09:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Did you read the link that I included?
I can list dozens of dating methods that point to a young earth...it's just scientists don't use those. Fine, present them in one of the dating threads and let's see if that dog hunts. The point is that Science does NOT begin with the conclusion but with questions and observations. Religion starts with the Answers and then selects those evidences that may help support the conclusion and discards those that falsify the conclusion. The whole foundation of science is doubt. Every theory is not just held up for falsification, falsification is encouraged and rewarded. Doubt, not Faith is the base of Science. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, it seems as though you are rejecting inference. Since nearly all science is conducted through inference, that would be a problem.
quote: The correct analogy would be more along the lines of predicting exactly where, when, and how a given asteroid is going to break up, and also predicting exactly how many pieces it is going to break up into, and what each particle's molecular structure is, and which of them is going to land on Earth, and where. Etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Garrett Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 111 From: Dallas, TX Joined: |
I'm not sure if you're goal was to shock me with this information. But trust me, I'm just as aware of the history of old ages as you are...no need to enlighten me there. The problem is, the discoveries were based on assumptions that may prove to not be true. Faith was tested at that time, I don't question that. What I question is your absolute statement of fact regarding interpretation of evidence.
I wouldn't compromise with the belief in "special creation". I believe in the single 6 day creation event that you mention.I'll have to go to a YEC thread to defend this position...I don't want to draw the ire of the admins. The fact is, there are a large group of scientists that are wrong on origins one way or the other. Many PHD scientists, in all specialties, exist that believe in the literal creation account. A scientists interpretation doesn't create fact...some "faith" or "assumption" or whathaveyou is required.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024