Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,651 Year: 4,908/9,624 Month: 256/427 Week: 2/64 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 154 (589606)
11-03-2010 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Blue Jay
11-03-2010 12:54 PM


Re: Blinded with science
Hi Bluejay,
Looks like you are blaming Shadow for something I posted.
Bluejay writes:
I'm no physicist, but I don't think you've got the right impression of what Einstein did nor of how he did it. Einstein's "thought experiments and math" were a response to an observed deficiency in a well-established theory (Newton's law of universal gravitation).
I did minor in physics as an undergraduate and I studied general relativity on my own after graduation. Your impression does not match the history I've read regarding Einstein's work. My recollection is that Einstein's thought experiments regarding the equivalence principle led to the prediction that light would bend in a gravitational field in a way not predicted using Newtonian gravity.
My understanding matches the story given in wikipedia
General relativity - Wikipedia
quote:
Soon after publishing the special theory of relativity in 1905, Einstein started thinking about how to incorporate gravity into his new relativistic framework. In 1907, beginning with a simple thought experiment involving an observer in free fall, he embarked on what would be an eight-year search for a relativistic theory of gravity.
Einstein was aware of the observed advancing of the perihelion for Mercury not matching Newtonian predictions, but the descrepancy with Kepler's laws was extremely tiny and was possibly explainable using other means, including using other gravitational theories, a proposed planet Vulcan that nobody seemed able to find, and an oblate shape for the sun. Einstein was certainly hopeful that he could quantitatively predict Mercury's orbit, but I don't believe that failing to do so would have torpedoed his work. In any event, Einstein was not able to calculate a precession prediction until about 1915.
On the other hand, Einstein's quantitative prediction of the bending of light, something that arose qualitatively from his thought experiments was essential. If that did not turn out right, Einstein's theory would have been falsified. Yet, light bending in a gravitational field had never been observed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Blue Jay, posted 11-03-2010 12:54 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Blue Jay, posted 11-03-2010 4:27 PM NoNukes has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6421
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 137 of 154 (589613)
11-03-2010 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Blue Jay
11-03-2010 12:54 PM


Re: Blinded with science
NoNukes writes:
Einstein's theory of general relativity was eventually tested, but his work involved little more than thought experiments and math for most of a decade. Was Einstein doing science then? I'd say yes.
Blue Jay writes:
I'm no physicist, but I don't think you've got the right impression of what Einstein did nor of how he did it.
I'm neither a physicist nor a historian. However, it is my understanding that NoNukes has it about right.
As I understand it, there was a growing realization that Maxwell's equation showed that light was electromagnetic waves. There was a lot of experimental research over a long period of time, in developing an understanding of electricity and magnetism, and their relations. Maxwell came up with some equations to express these relations, and was able to derive the wave equation from them. The wave equation that he derived gave a speed of propogation of electromagnetic waves that was very similar to the measured speed of light. And this led people to begin thinking that light was actually electromagnetic waves.
As I understand it, Einstein was inspired by those ideas, and recognized that they were inconsistent with the lumeniferous aether wave explanation of light. This, in turn, caused problems for Newtonian mechanics. If light was aether waves, then the speed of light was relative to the aether drift. If light was electromagnetic waves, there was nothing for it to be relative to. Einsteins theories emerged from thinking about the consequent problems. His general relativity was to go beyond the limitations of special relativity.
There was a lot of observational science behind Maxwell's electrodynamics. But much of it was in the form of knowledge that have been absorbed by a kind of osmosis (not the chemical kind of osmosis). In particular, it seems that Einstein was not responding to any specific observational evidence.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Blue Jay, posted 11-03-2010 12:54 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 138 of 154 (589623)
11-03-2010 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by shadow71
11-02-2010 4:25 PM


We may understand the nature of the events that caused the above.
But we do not know why they occurred.
To put it succinctly, they occur because they can occur.
You might as well ask why you are dealt a deuce of hearts instead of a 4 of spades each time you play cards. There are many possible outcomes of which only one occurs.
So it goes back to the question Biologists ignore, the origin of life.
That is a question that biologists leave to biochemists because they have better training to do the research.
What biologists are interested in is how life works. In case you didn't notice biology means the study (-ology) of life (bio-). The chemistry that preceded the first life was not itself alive, so not really part of biology.
IOW, scientists break up a problem into smaller questions and attack each question. Biologists got all of the problems that dealt with how life works and how life has changed over time. Chemists got the problems of how atoms interact. Biochemists bridge the gap between chemistry and biology.
But then again you would throw out all of the answers in chemistry because chemists won't deal with the origin of atoms, right?
The whole point of my post is that until Science can prove the origin of life, evolution is not proven to be a natural caused event.
How so? Do we need to know where hydrogen and oxygen came from in order to know that they form water? Do we need to know where germs came from in order to know that they cause infectious diseases? Why would we need to know where the first life came from in order to understand how life changes over time?
For example is there a valid scientific theory for information in the cell?
When you demonstrate how this information can be measured I will be happy to discuss it with you.
That is the problem I have with Scientist who state, if we can't explain it today we will tomorrow. talk about FAITH!!
I would agree. However, it doesn't take faith to state that scientists are working on these problems. I would also state that it is unwarranted pessimism to state that they will never find a solution to these problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by shadow71, posted 11-02-2010 4:25 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3021 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 139 of 154 (589632)
11-03-2010 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by jar
11-02-2010 5:46 PM


jar writes,
quote:
Even if there was some designer, what is the value or merit to knowing that beyond the two areas I mention, as a historical footnote or in the case of Product Liability suits?
I guess if there was a designer, as I belive, it would make irrevelant the naturalist secular philosphy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by jar, posted 11-02-2010 5:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 11-03-2010 4:22 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 140 of 154 (589643)
11-03-2010 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by shadow71
11-03-2010 3:53 PM


Not at all.
The key point is that the natural processes are not a matter of belief, but rather actual observable and testable events.
Even if there was some designer, even if what you believe is true, it's just not very important.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by shadow71, posted 11-03-2010 3:53 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2785 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 141 of 154 (589645)
11-03-2010 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by NoNukes
11-03-2010 2:09 PM


Re: Blinded with science
Hi, NoNukes.
NoNukes writes:
Looks like you are blaming Shadow for something I posted.
Sorry for that: a week or two out of the game apparently ruins my reading skills. Most of my commentary was geared toward Shadow too, so you can probably not take any of it personally.
-----
NoNukes writes:
In any event, Einstein was not able to calculate a precession prediction until about 1915.
Okay, I misunderstood you: you mentioned general relativity and "most of a decade" of math and thought experiments, and I assumed you were talking about the period of time between GR and Eddington (which, as I review the dates, is not "most of a decade," anyway); rather than the period between special and general relativity.
Now that I understand this, perhaps your question about whether Einstein was doing science in the specified period of time is more interesting than I thought.
Wasn't Special Relativity an attempt to explain why measurements of the speed of light were not affected by the motion of the earth? If so, the math and thought experiments were hypotheses that were designed to explain real observations, and to suggest what evidence future testing should look for.
So, I agree that this counts as science, even though it doesn't include testing. The question then is whether or not ID work counts as science, even though it doesn't include testing. I say it is disqualified on the grounds that the observations it is meant to explain aren't real, and in the rare case that they are real, the explanation is post hoc and never meant to proceed to the testing stage.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2010 2:09 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2010 6:50 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 154 (589670)
11-03-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Blue Jay
11-03-2010 4:27 PM


Re: Blinded with science
Bluejay writes:
Wasn't Special Relativity an attempt to explain why measurements of the speed of light were not affected by the motion of the earth? If so, the math and thought experiments were hypotheses that were designed to explain real observations, and to suggest what evidence future testing should look for.
'
In the case of special relativity, I don't think it is easy to find a good science/not science question to ask. I've heard varying stories about what drove Einstein and I don't recall which have been debunked.
I think that the constant speed of light was a postulate used to derive SR rather than a prediction of the theory. That suggests that it was not quite as you propose. I know that Einstein felt that some the explanations for some electromagnetic phenomenon were inelegant because they required electrical explanations in some inertial reference frames and magnetic explanations in others. SR eliminated this inelegance.
What is clear is that Einstein did make predictions based on his theory and that that both SR and GR have been verified by observation and experiments that could have falsified his theories. Einstein simply had a long formulating hypothesis period. Clearly he was using the scientific method.
Consider also that Einstein's Nobel prize was not for either SR or GR. Einstein was an astounding theorist and a scientist of the highest order.
Behe, not so much at least with respect to ID.
The question then is whether or not ID work counts as science, even though it doesn't include testing.
Where are the falsifying predictions? What does ID predict that is distinct from what other theories suggest? If like GR in 1907, we simply haven't made that kind of progress yet, then why is ID ready to teach to high school students.
Of course that's even ignoring the elephant in the room, namely the first amendment issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Blue Jay, posted 11-03-2010 4:27 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3021 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 143 of 154 (589805)
11-04-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by PaulK
10-31-2010 3:49 PM


paulk writes,
quote:
Why would we need to know the origin of life ? What we need to know is how life developed over time, and as with any other scientific investigation of history we look at the processes occurring now and compare them with the data we have relating to the past. If we discover no incompatibilities we conclude that the known processes are responsible for past events. Where is the need for us to know the origins to do that ?
I believe this is where my original post has "evolved."
I have read back & forths betheen Michael Behe, Sean B. Carroll
Jerry Coyne and others in re "the edge of evolution."
My impression as a non scientists is that Behe has answered all of their criticisms by what he states is "scientific" evidence. I do not know the science, so here is where I am left.
Is Michael Behe a liar. Has he made up the Science. Are Carroll, Coyne et. al liars. Have they made up their science. Have all of them stated correct scientific findings but shaded them in ways that support their view?
Behe has a bias in support of ID, and Carroll, Coyne, et.al. have a bias in supporting Darwin's theory of evolution.
My conclusion. I cannot rule out intelligent design as being a valid discpline that may prove some of Darwin's evolutionary theory false. So for me life goes on.
My faith in God is intact, and doesn't rely on Science validating or invalidating the Theory of Intelligent design as espoused by humans.
It is my opinion the LAW has a valid way of finding the truth of the above cited disputed scientific facts. That would be by depostion under oath.
I could take a few weeks preparing the depostions of Behe, Carroll and Coyne and find out who is hedging & who is not.
Unfortunately that will never happen.
But for me this post is at a standstill.
I enjoyed it very much and look forward to chiming in on other post on this site.
Thanks
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2010 3:49 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by subbie, posted 11-04-2010 3:47 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 145 by nwr, posted 11-04-2010 4:06 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2010 5:07 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2010 8:52 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1342 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 144 of 154 (589809)
11-04-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by shadow71
11-04-2010 3:26 PM


Is Michael Behe a liar. Has he made up the Science. Are Carroll, Coyne et. al liars. Have they made up their science. Have all of them stated correct scientific findings but shaded them in ways that support their view?
Behe has a bias in support of ID, and Carroll, Coyne, et.al. have a bias in supporting Darwin's theory of evolution.
But the question is why the bias? Behe et al. are biased because they think that's what the bible requires. Scientists are biased because that's what the evidence says.
Now, I suspect your response is going to be that Carroll, Coyne et al. are biased because of their atheistic beliefs. However, how do you explain the thousands of Christian scientists and scientists of other religious beliefs who conclude evolution because that's what the evidence says?
I'd venture to guess that you can't find a single non-religious scientist who puts any stock I.D. But the vast majority religious scientists conclude that the ToE is the best explanation for the history of life on this planet. Interestingly, thousands of clergy agree with science. See the Clergy Letter Project. Obviously, it's the science that convinced them, not any bias.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by shadow71, posted 11-04-2010 3:26 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6421
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 145 of 154 (589810)
11-04-2010 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by shadow71
11-04-2010 3:26 PM


shadow71 writes:
Is Michael Behe a liar. Has he made up the Science.
Behe has argued that some genetic structures could not have evolved. That an argument, not evidence. People have disagreed with his conclusions. But it isn't a disagreement over observed fact.
shadow71 writes:
Have all of them stated correct scientific findings but shaded them in ways that support their view?
Possibly. Carrol, Coyne et al. disagree with Behe on their understanding of what can result from the evolutionary processes that biology documents. In my opinion (as a non-biologist), the evidence supports them far better than it supports Behe.
shadow71 writes:
My conclusion. I cannot rule out intelligent design as being a valid discpline that may prove some of Darwin's evolutionary theory false. So for me life goes on.
Nobody is trying to restrict your ability to reach your own conclusions.
What has mainly been at issue, is the fact that ID is not science. That is to say, it is not following anything approximating a scientific investigation.
shadow71 writes:
It is my opinion the LAW has a valid way of finding the truth of the above cited disputed scientific facts.
We already had that trial in Dover, PA.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by shadow71, posted 11-04-2010 3:26 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 146 of 154 (589822)
11-04-2010 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by shadow71
11-04-2010 3:26 PM


quote:
believe this is where my original post has "evolved."
I have read back & forths betheen Michael Behe, Sean B. Carroll
Jerry Coyne and others in re "the edge of evolution."
My impression as a non scientists is that Behe has answered all of their criticisms by what he states is "scientific" evidence. I do not know the science, so here is where I am left.
In fact your posts display a pattern of evasion and avoidance. You have utterly refused to back up your original accusation of a double standard, showing that it was completely baseless. And that illustrates the lack of moral and intellectual honesty typical of the ID movement - which all too clearly illustrates it's devotion to apologetics and dogma over true Christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by shadow71, posted 11-04-2010 3:26 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by shadow71, posted 11-06-2010 12:05 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 147 of 154 (589874)
11-04-2010 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by shadow71
11-04-2010 3:26 PM


Is Michael Behe a liar.
Not necessarily. He could also be a fool.
It is my opinion the LAW has a valid way of finding the truth of the above cited disputed scientific facts. That would be by depostion under oath.
I could take a few weeks preparing the depostions of Behe, Carroll and Coyne and find out who is hedging & who is not.
Here's Michael Behe testifying under oath.
Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.
A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.
Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?
A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.
Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.
A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.
Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?
A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.
Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by shadow71, posted 11-04-2010 3:26 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1492 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 148 of 154 (590096)
11-05-2010 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Coyote
10-28-2010 10:22 PM


Re: God the selective breeder
Hi Coyote (et al, asking essentially the same questions)
If this supernatural stuff can't be detected, why are we not safe in just ignoring it as if it didn't exist?
For the same reason that not being able to falsify it means shadow71 would be safe in just ignoring claims that his assertion is false, as if they didn't exist. Remember that his question was:
quote:
How can sceintists accept a belief in natural selection as superior to my belief in the supernatural's continuous creation as the cause of evolution.
All you are doing is assuming that your position is true, same as shadow71.
The logical rational position is that we don't know. Note that in either case you end up with the same results: evolutionary adaption to ecology.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Coyote, posted 10-28-2010 10:22 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Coyote, posted 11-05-2010 9:48 PM RAZD has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2193 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 149 of 154 (590098)
11-05-2010 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
11-05-2010 9:24 PM


Logical rational position--again...
The logical rational position is that we don't know.
Given the propositions that 1) the supernatural exists, and 2) the supernatural does not exist, the evidence is not equal in both cases. The vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that the supernatural does not exist. The evidence supporting the existence of the supernatural is pretty much squat.
While the "logical rational position" might be that we don't know, I suspect that there are few equivalent cases out there with those same odds that you would bet all the rent money on.
And because of this, have you not left the "logical rational position" behind in favor of religious belief?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2010 9:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2010 8:40 AM Coyote has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1492 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 150 of 154 (590134)
11-06-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Coyote
11-05-2010 9:48 PM


Re: Logical rational position--again...
Hi Coyote,
Given the propositions that 1) the supernatural exists, and 2) the supernatural does not exist, the evidence is not equal in both cases. The vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that the supernatural does not exist. The evidence supporting the existence of the supernatural is pretty much squat.
In your opinion.
This is not the thread to discuss it, but I note that every time an atheist claim that there is a preponderance of evidence that supernatural entities do not exist is challenged, that they are unable to come up with any. Mostly what is brought up is that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence and other logical fallacies. See Pseudoskepticism and logic for an example.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Coyote, posted 11-05-2010 9:48 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Coyote, posted 11-06-2010 10:44 AM RAZD has seen this message but 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