mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
They can use deduction within the framework, but deductive logic wouldn't allow for paradigm shifts.
Incorrect. It is precisely because of deductive logic that we get paradigm shifts:
If X is true, then we necessarily see Y. We instead see Z, therefore X cannot be true and must be discarded.
quote:
Generally, theories are tentative. There is some deducing within, but it is not a solid knowledge like a deductive syllogism from KNOWN premisses.
Huh? How is it not deductive simply because we're not sure if the premises are certain? Did you learn nothing from the development of non-Euclidean geometry? It's because we decided that the "KNOWN" premises of Euclidean geometry aren't true that we are able to develop other systems of geometry.
That doesn't make Euclidean geometry any less deductive or any less "solid." It simply means it is dependent upon the various postulates and axioms being true. If they're not, then we'll discard it.
quote:
You are equivocating with the term "evolution". If you mean natural selection and speciation is a fact - then I agree.
But that's what evolution is. How can it be equivocation when that is precisely what the term means?
Again, evolution is both a fact
AND a theory. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. We know that evolution happens. The theory
OF evolution seeks to describe how it happens.
quote:
This is the "gap" where people make personal choices whether to believe big evolution happened, and it is where many people think that the "gaps" in the fossil record are woefully huge, therefore they don't need to bake a macro-cake.
Incorrect.
What are these "gaps" to which you speak? Be specific. We keep hearing creationists claim that there aren't transitional fossils, but the fossil record is lousy with them. You can't go to a dig without tripping over them.
Be specific, mike. What are these "gaps" you're talking about?
Please note, I am not saying there are none. I'm simply asking for you to define your terms for you are assuming that if there is a gap, then it is "woefully huge" and are expecting everybody else to go along with you.
I am worried that you're going to invoke the creationist fallacy that if we find a transitional between A and B, that leaves two more "gaps" that need to be filled, even though the "gap" between A and B has been reduced.
quote:
I never asked anybody to.
Did you or did you not say:
Just a personal choice.
In the very sentence before?
Do you think we're stupid, mike?
quote:
It means you have a presupposition that the bible is "wishful thinking".
In the context of science, how is it not? The Bible is nothing but assertion and what is assertion if not wishful thinking? We don't include the Iliad, the Odyssey, Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings, the Book of Three, the Koran, the Baghvad Gita, and a host of other books in science.
Why do you wish to invoke special pleading for your favorite book?
quote:
Do you KNOW it is wishful thinking?
It's what you're doing right now.
quote:
quote:
Any claim that explains everything actually explains nothing.
HAHAHA. Or it explains everything because it's the truth.
Incorrect. You clearly misunderstood.
Suppose there is an experiment. A theory claims that if thus-and-so is the case, then we should see result X. If we see something else, then we know that thus-and-so is not true. Therefore, there is a differential outcome that is explained by the theory: You get result X and not Y. The reason why you don't get Y is because the process gives a result of X.
But if your theory says that X, Y, Z, and any other possible outcome is acceptable, then what have we actually learned? How does it explain why we got result Y and not X? The theory says that X is just as acceptable a result, so why didn't we get it?
Gravitational theory says that when I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground. It does not fall into the sky. Gravity is an attractive force and pulls the objects together. It does not push them apart.
But if your theory is that god purposefully, consciously, and deliberately moves the ball, then that doesn't really tell us why the ball falls to the ground. God could just as easily have moved the ball into the sky, moved it laterally, had it hover, do loop-the-loops, etc. So why didn't it? Why did it fall to the ground? Why does it always fall to the ground?
Because the "god did it" claim explains every possible outcome we could possibly find, it doesn't actually explain anything.
quote:
I said that it is the creationists right to not believe in a theory.
You have a right to your opinion.
You do not have a right to your facts.
quote:
A good example of why we don't place faith in men's theories, as we think God, if he exists, if he is the bible God, is omniscient, and - does know.
BZZZT!
Pascal's Wager!
I'm so sorry, mike.
What makes you think you picked the right god? Chances are you didn't.
And on top of that, you do realize that by making god omniscient, you do away with free will. This isn't me writing to you, mike, it's god. And that isn't you responding. It's god.
And thus all creation is nothing more than an exercise of god playing with himself.
quote:
I said I see all theories as not being fact
Huh? Nobody said a theory was a fact. That's why we say that evolution is both a fact
AND a theory. They're distinct things. Evolution happens right in front of our eyes. That's the fact. How evolution happens is the theory.
quote:
but infact the facts that they deal with are facts.
Then you're saying evolution is a fact.
Good.
quote:
Science is tentative, and theories aren't deductive or gravity wouldn't be negotiable.
Huh? How is it not deductive? Gravity isn't negotiable. Step off the Empire State Building and you plummet (to the balcony a few floors down).
The fact that our understanding of kinetics changed from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein didn't mean that apples suddenly hovered in mid-air awaiting us to make up our minds about how gravity works. That's why theories are deductive: They start with observable facts and deduce the interactions that lead to the results.
quote:
But people don't believe in big evolution
First, there's no such thing as "big evolution." There is just evolution.
Second, evolution believes in people. That's the great thing about science: It doesn't require belief. Gravity works where you believe in it or not.
quote:
because they believe that macro-evolution is not knowable at this stage.
But we've seen it happen right in front of our eyes. Why would you have us lie to people?
quote:
The actual small scale biological insights are true, but they don't believe in big change.
If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10? How does the genome know that it isn't allowed to change anymore because that'll mean we've speciated?
quote:
I only ask that we don't insist they believe in it, as afterall, we don't insist that they believe in any other theories such as gravity etc....
You have a right to your opinion.
YOu do not have a right to your facts.
quote:
If creationism is bunkem and god knows nothing, then why worry?
Ah, yes...you make an idiotic statement and the people who point out your errors are the ones with the problem.
That's called "projection," mike.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2