Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 3:11 PM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,152 Year: 9,188/19,786 Month: 1,610/2,119 Week: 370/576 Day: 45/128 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   Verifying truth in science - is evolution faith-based?
Garrett
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 46 of 104 (289277)
02-21-2006 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
02-21-2006 4:29 PM


So you honestly doubt evolution? If not, your statement is meaningless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 02-21-2006 4:29 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by EZscience, posted 02-21-2006 4:44 PM Garrett has not yet responded
 Message 50 by jar, posted 02-21-2006 4:45 PM Garrett has responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3320 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 47 of 104 (289279)
02-21-2006 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
02-21-2006 4:29 PM


jar writes:

Doubt, not Faith is the base of Science.

Can I have an Amen !
Well said.

This leads directly to falsifiability as the organized process of 'doubting' in science. A hypothesis must be falsifiable to be considered scientific, because without meeting that criterium, there exist no objective mechanisms with which to address doubt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 02-21-2006 4:29 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 48 of 104 (289280)
02-21-2006 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:33 PM


assumptions
A scientists interpretation doesn't create fact...some "faith" or "assumption" or whathaveyou is required.

You are conflating faith with assumptions? You realize we can test assumptions but cannot test faith? The most base of assumptions cannot be tested (axioms), but have been used with success so often that it is fair to accept them and faith doesn't enter into it.

May I point to your original words again?

if the evidence infers a conclusion that isn't verifiable, you rely on faith

Macroevolutionary conclusions are verifiable. The OP deals with this. How do you reply?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:33 PM Garrett has not yet responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3320 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 49 of 104 (289282)
02-21-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:36 PM


Doubt...
It is not a question of doubting evolution per se, but rather phrasing evolutionary inferences in ways that permit them to be tested. Not every inference made by evolutionary theorists is going to be correct in every particular context, but a correctly framed hypothesis warrants the effort to disprove it - an incorrectly framed one does not.
Sometimes you learn as much by disproving a hypothesis as by proving it, but only when it is a 'good' scientific hyptothesis.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:36 PM Garrett has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30985
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 50 of 104 (289283)
02-21-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:36 PM


So you honestly doubt evolution? If not, your statement is meaningless.

Really? Let's look at what I said?

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.

Of course the issue of Evolution was doubted, until overwhelming evidence made doubting that Evolution happened pretty close to impossible. As to the process of evolution, what is called the Theory of Evolution, again, certainly there is doubt. One of the biggest areas right now is in the area of pre-Cambrian life, how extensive it was, how varied. Another is the wonderful thing we are learning about the evolution of birds, and of earliy mammals.

Again, hell yes, doubt is the basis of science, not faith. Doubt is what leads to advances.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:36 PM Garrett has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:47 PM jar has responded

  
Garrett
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 51 of 104 (289284)
02-21-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
02-21-2006 4:26 PM


Re: YEC assumptions and the point of this topic
The genesis account, in my opinion, is a literal history...but the text, just like the scientific evidence for evolution is open to interpretation. I'm suggesting that we have different interpretations in this area.

I agree with the first part of your position, but not the second (huge surprise I know). I still hold to the position that microevolution is the only portion of evolution that can be held to verification.

I'm not sure if discussing the evidence you reference is off topic, but I suspect it's only direct evidence for microevolution and indirect evidence for macro. It honestly seems to me as though evolutionists can't seperate the 2 or at least can't admit that 1 doesn't prove the other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2006 4:26 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2006 5:06 PM Garrett has not yet responded
 Message 71 by nator, posted 02-22-2006 8:18 AM Garrett has not yet responded

  
Garrett
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 52 of 104 (289285)
02-21-2006 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
02-21-2006 4:45 PM


The examples you list draw doubt to specifics, but not to the underlying assumptions. You simply assume that life arose naturally and therefore since animals change..even to new species, that they must change orders and families too. No facts support this stance.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 02-21-2006 4:45 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 02-21-2006 4:55 PM Garrett has not yet responded
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 02-21-2006 6:26 PM Garrett has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 53 of 104 (289287)
02-21-2006 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:33 PM


Looking forward to it
We all look forward to your demonstration of what is wrong with dating (especially). Of course, you understand that this sort of claim is made about once a month on average here and no one ever handles the HUGE volume of evidence for an old earth.

The "correlations" thread is the one that touches (only just barely touches) on the evidence. It emphasizes what appears to be a big problem for the YEC view; there doesn't appear to be any web site with any discussion of the correlations between totally independent methods. Naming God "Loki" seems to be the only way out in the end.

Message 1

Please, demonstrate the evidence you have for a young earth and what is wrong with the content of the above thread. We're are really interested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:33 PM Garrett has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30985
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 54 of 104 (289292)
02-21-2006 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:47 PM


nope, you wrong there.
The examples you list draw doubt to specifics, but not to the underlying assumptions. You simply assume that life arose naturally and therefore since animals change..even to new species, that they must change orders and families too. No facts support this stance.

No, the examples I gave were not to specifics but rather to the underlying basis of Science.

Science is based on doubt.

The Scientific Method is based on doubt.

The only reason there has ever been any advances in science is because someone questioned. The scientific method is based on doubt. Works are published so that they can be challenged. Even before publication they need to go through peer review, more doubt and challenge. Once published they are tested by the others that must replicate the finding. When errors are found, science changes. It is a doubt based system.

Doubt, not Faith is the basis of Science.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:47 PM Garrett has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1133 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 55 of 104 (289295)
02-21-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Garrett
02-21-2006 3:23 PM


What we see are changes within species..and even speciation (no I wouldn't accept this as an evidence of macroevolution since it is defined as changes above the level of species).

Then may I assume for further discussion that you consider the genus to be the demarcation line for kinds? That would be useful.

With black holes we have the same scenario...we can observe their effects ( X-ray emission from X-ray binaries and active galactic nuclei, etc...)in the present time. Concerning evolution, we can only observe the effects of microevolution, that is changes at or below the species level. This should be pretty intuitive given the fact that even intellectually honest evolutionists would admit it.

But of course we do not observe the present effects of black holes, but rather apprehend the effects of their prior existence--the physical traces, x-ray emissions, etc.), that persist across distance and time.

Similarly, we cannot observe macroevolution (accepting for the moment your idiosyncratic definition), but rather the effects of that prior process--the physical traces, fossils, DNA sequences--that persist.

In both instances, our observations are in the present moment, but the originating phenomena are not. The analogy of the black hole holds up quite well, at least to this particular challenge.


"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 3:23 PM Garrett has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 56 of 104 (289296)
02-21-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:45 PM


Re: YEC assumptions and the point of this topic
I still hold to the position that microevolution is the only portion of evolution that can be held to verification.

Do you believe that we can verify that a murder has taken place and who has committed it without actually observing it?

, but I suspect it's only direct evidence for microevolution and indirect evidence for macro

If you think human-chimpanzee divergence and yeast sharing a common ancestor with humans is microevolution, then you'd be right.

It honestly seems to me as though evolutionists can't seperate the 2 or at least can't admit that 1 doesn't prove the other.

I've succesfully seperated the two. There is a thread in which the evolutionists go to great pains to explain the differences between the two. I assure you that the 29+ evidences (and the evidence I referenced in the OP) are for macroevolution and not microevolution.

I'm not sure if discussing the evidence you reference is off topic

Its something that shouldn't be the focus of the thread, but it can be talked about to a small extent.


I draw your attention to an important question:

Do you believe that we can verify that a murder has taken place and who has committed it without actually observing it?

This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 21-February-2006 10:08 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:45 PM Garrett has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 104 (289328)
02-21-2006 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:47 PM


even to new species, that they must change orders and families too. No facts support this stance.

Well, that's not true. We've observed evolutionary change resulting in different orders.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:47 PM Garrett has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 104 (289329)
02-21-2006 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by robinrohan
02-21-2006 4:20 PM


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.

So, biology has bigger error bars. Does that make it illegitimate? Anyway, physics isn't really science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 02-21-2006 4:20 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by robinrohan, posted 02-21-2006 7:50 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 59 of 104 (289333)
02-21-2006 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:13 PM


Garrett writes:

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!

What do violins of heavenly manufacture have to do with homology. :D

Actually, it wasn't just homology I referenced but all of Darwin's evidence from Origin of Species, and the genetic evidence.

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.

The theory of evolution postulates that the same natural processes that have been scientifically observed and studied and characterized were responsible for the diversity of life we see today. YEC creationism postulates that God created the world according to the Genesis account through processes that have never been scientifically observed or studied or characterized. Because it resorts to unknown and unseen processes, creationism is unscientific.

You HAVE to make an assumption to even begin interpreting. Faith and worldview are inseperable.

Science does make a couple significant assumptions, but they're empirically verified. First, it assumes naturalism, meaning that only that which you can detect through the five senses, directly or indirectly, can be studied. Second, it assumes consistency, meaning that the natural laws discovered in one place in the universe apply equally throughout the rest of the universe.

This does not by any means invalidate empirically unverified assumptions, such as the existence of a deity, but it does take them out of the realm of science.

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.

I'm glad you understand uniformitarianism. Though no longer a term in common use, as a concept it nonetheless has very strong empirical scientific support.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:13 PM Garrett has not yet responded

    
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 104 (289355)
02-21-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
02-21-2006 6:29 PM


So, biology has bigger error bars. Does that make it illegitimate?

By no means illegitimate. I was just pointing out what type of evidence we had for evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 02-21-2006 6:29 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by robinrohan, posted 02-24-2006 11:22 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019