The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"

Does ID belong in this thread? That is up to schraf but it is a long way from "mainstream" creation "science" since it accepts almost ALL of the findings of geology, cosmology and biology.The fact that it can be refuted tends to make it more of a real science. Just a dead end path of research it appears.

Would you like me to start a thread specifically to allow you to show the evidence and what you consider a good alternative interpretation?I think we could use one in the dates and dating for example. There are things in there that no one has offered a working alternative explanation for. Would you like to be the one to try?The facts are Dawg, that there are some very powerful pieces of evidence for the age of the earth. There have been NO alternative explanations for them. You can hunt around in creationist sites and you will come up dry.

Is this worth taking to another thread? Let me know if you're willing to explain what you mean by this.Perhaps we should go back to
Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!We can reopen it if you want.Then you can explain the magnetic reversals and their correlation with the current rate of spreading among many other things left out of your predictions.

The theory certainly has evolved. As we have more information (genetics being a biggy); better tools such as computer modeling and new evidence the theory has expanded and become much more detailed.The basic theory as propounded by Darwin hasn't changed all that much. This is partially because his level of detail was rather low. That is, he didn't really give more than what we, today, see as an overview in which the details fit. Perhaps the only detail he gave that has changed is that the rate of evolution is both constant and slow.If there are any apparent "fossil falsifications" found they might amount to 10 out of 100,000's of fossils found. If that is the right ration and the odd ones are not locked down tight what would we do? Perhaps, explain away is what would be done. Are the explanations any good?Meanwhile there have been powerful cooberating evidence found (the DNA patterns is a biggy) and these are not at all expected or explained by any other ideas.Would you like to start a thread on the falsifications?HangDawg, I don't know if you had this mentioned to you. There are a lot of creationist sources on the web that are dishonest. You might want to figure out how you would figure out when you are being lied to.

Yea, there are a lot of things I don't understand or "get". One is the strange way that someone like WT thinks but a bigger one is the idea of having things shaking a world view, even a little bit. It seems to me that time is needed to digest things a bit.Perhaps just moderating for awhile would allow you to gather more information and have time to think about things.

I spent most of a year in a physics reseach lab. The tossing around of ideas is a big coffee time game. More so than bridge, chess or go even. (well, that varies)It is an enormously exciting and entertaining environment. These are smart people. (and I'm not including me in that: I brought the average IQ down). You think that you can generate nutsy, outlandish ideas? Ha! You have to know a lot to really do a job of that.However, these folks can also poke a major hole in almost all of the speculations before the coffee cools. The HP idea is one that doesn't last as long as it takes sugar to disolve in hot coffee.You seem to think that no other ideas are considered. It is true that one doesn't go back over 150 + years of history but if there is a hole in the basics there are people in the field who will find it. I'm figuring the biolgists are just as smart as the physicists. There is no hope of someone without a deep knowledge of the current paradigm being able to find the holes in it.When relativity is replaced it won't be by some crackpot it will come from a young, smart relativist who understands it better than Einstein did. Any major shift in biology will be made by biolgists. Others simply don't know where to start. They don't understand the current ideas well enough to know where the real problems are. All they seem to do is poke away at stawmen.

Put that particular version of creation can be examined. It makes statements about the physics, cosmology, geology, chemistry and biology that can be shown to be false.And I agree with you; your definition of "creationism" is what is usually understood by it.

Yes, of course. Falsification is only one tool in sorting out different explanations for things. However, once an idea has been falsified it doesn't have to have other examinations done.The only way to save 7D YEC creationism is to say:
"God not only did-it, He also made it look like it was done in a different way than it was done."This is generally taken as shitty theology and it doesn't really matter to me. If everyone wants all scientific conclusions to be prefaced with "God made it appear that..." (Gmiat) then nothing changes. It just makes those who want the preface look pretty silly.

I didn't check back to see if he did make that mistake. But you make a good point in any case. As I see it you are both correct. However, your viewpoint can get a little tangled in the philosophy. What is "reality" can get complex if you allow the wierd (IMHO) philosophical arguments free reign. A theory is, among other thing, an organization of what is known as simple facts. He is only using shorthand. The ToE is a fully scientific theory and stands in very well for any of them.

Of course this is right. "Evolution" is just a subset of the sciences.Can you articulate what you think you could find in the "junk" DNA that would make a truely deep change to the ToE? It seems to me that the complexity of the way a genome is expressed has already been exposed but there will be lots more uncovered. The complexity doesn't seem to me to have made a real fundamental difference to the ToE. It just adds still more to the myriad of details that we need to understand.What "fatal flaws" might you find? Don't worry about having to back them up as yet. It is unfettered (well sort of unfettered) speculation that starts many an avenue of research. It would be interesting to see some thoughts. It is hard for me, with my perhaps limited imagination, to figure out what might turn up with what we already know.Actually, this might be a good place to spin off a new thread with that as a topic. Would you do so? I know an admin that will quickly approve it.

You mean a negative here? That is you can prove something untrue but not "true".This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-10-2004 07:59 PM

I understand not debating this right now. What I might point out is that this is dangerously close to "God-of-the-gaps". It is based on what we don't know.You can't have enough evidence against naturalistic processes in this area. We simply haven't explored it enough yet. It is an open question. That is, it is a gap in our knowledge. Using those to find God is considered bad theology by most.

I think this is still on topic (the topic leaves a fair amount of room):200 years to 400 years is about the right time to age the scientific approach as we see it now. It wasn't all put together in one instance so you can't draw a firm line.It is frequently dated from Galileo as he followed a primitive form of the scientific method in much of what he did. That gives us 400 years.If we look at individuals and what they did then we might see little sparks of it long before. The fact that the Earth is a sphere was recognized by the Greeks and the diameter was rather accurately measured. The methods look good even now. Was it "science" as we use it today? That could be argued about but why bother.I've read that the educated in Columbus's day understood that the earth was round. It is a misconception that this was the problem that those who opposed him had. The flat earth was held by those less educated just as there are many misconceptions held by the under educated today.In fact, those who opposed Columbus were correct. He was wrong!He thought the earth was only about 16,000 miles in circumference. His opponents had the much better value of about what it actually is. If he hadn't had the dumb luck to run into an "extra" continent then he might as well have sailed off the edge of the earth. He'd never have made it across a sea streching from Europe to China. That is what his opponents were saying.MMM, that was a bit of a digression.The points are:
There have been little sparks of science spread over many centuries.
It is possible to date our current understanding of science from somewhere between 400 and 200 years ago. Just depends on what you pick. If you get fussy enough you might pick a time more like 100 years ago as the philosophy got more and more sorted out.
Some people (and maybe we could argue that they were "scientists") knew the earth wasn't flat over 2,000 years ago.
Many people (the more educated) knew it 500 years ago.and ( a bit more contentious, and possibly wrong)
If anyone "knew" the earth was flat it would have been the Biblical literalists.And one more digression:
It is, of course, common sense that the earth is flat. Just look around you. At first glance that is the right answer.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-10-2004 11:25 PM

Me too, and maybe, just maybe in matters pertinent to the debate. Low probability though.I also think it has happened in the past. There is a tendancy for them to give up on creationism in the process. Not having had those feelings I should leave this to those who have but I don't see (as best as I can tell from what I've read from creationists here and elsewhere) that there are any similarities in feelings.The closest that I might be able to come is the general (not evolution related) feelings I get of excitement and awe as we learn more and more about the universe and all it contains. It is just plain neat!!! (does that word date me terribly ? )

I disagree Charles, you are taking it too literally. One can hardly construct any really good analogy for something that is unknown. But it isn't bad.(added by edit)
I was just visiting friends with two new koi in a fish pond. We were teaching them that food appears in one place in the pond. And in a day they seemed to be getting it.Comparing the relative distance between us and the koi and God and us may not capture it perfectly but it gives something useful I think. And I do like the superaquatic idea of JT's.But notice the difference, the koi where fed when they came to "worship" at the one spot in the pond no matter what. They didn't have to "believe" they simply had to show up. All the fish got food there. It isn't pick and choose.It is easier for the fish to believe I exist under those circumstances than for me to believe God exists since God isn't as consistant as I am. Of course, to the fish, I am "unknowable" in any sense that I would understand. But they can tell that something is out there or not and when something is food is produced.That's one heck of a lot more than you can say for God. In that case only some of the fish get anything, it isn't food cause they will all starve just as fast whether they think that God is there or not. So the other fish have no reason to hang around since they don't get anything or see anything.There is not lure bobbing the water. There is no shadowy form on the surface of the water. In fact, we can't even see, touch or anything the boundary of our water. The fish can and use it to get air.(mmmm, come to think of it the analogy does have a hole it it. The fish are "superaquatic" too. They can, and do get oxygen from outside the lake.)This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-18-2004 03:28 AM