Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,137 Year: 5,394/9,624 Month: 419/323 Week: 59/204 Day: 1/34 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Scientific Method For Beginners
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4542 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 46 of 138 (520954)
08-25-2009 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Huntard
08-24-2009 7:07 AM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
quote:
All of those have nothing to do with evolution.
See post above.
quote:
So I'd say evolutionists have a very consistent stance on them, namely, none at all.
hmm...Not sure what you are saying here. I am sure you have some sort of stance on the existance of the universe, the origin of life, even if it is exclusion of some stances such as biblical creation. Everybody does as far as I know. In fact most peole post on here because they have a stance, they may not have worked out all the details, but they still have a stance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Huntard, posted 08-24-2009 7:07 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4542 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 47 of 138 (520955)
08-25-2009 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dr Adequate
08-24-2009 7:15 AM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
to Dr Adequate
Yikes!!
Is this some sort of scare tactic to stop me from posting or trying to make me crawl up into a corner and cry?
Please explain how I am lying. Maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say so hopefully my latest posts will help. Your reply confuses me as it seems to be more of a hate post then anything helpful. Yes, you have been posting on this forum for a long time however this doesn't mean that you are somehow automatically superior to me on the topic of Creation vs Evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-24-2009 7:15 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 08-25-2009 7:31 AM Arphy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17851
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 48 of 138 (520959)
08-25-2009 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Arphy
08-25-2009 7:23 AM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
I think that Dr. Adequate was objecting to your "Evolutionists need to deny God" claim. Try telling that to Kenneth Miller, or Francis Collins or Simon Conway Morris.
Anybody who actually follows the debate (instead of Creationist propaganda) knows that it isn't true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 7:23 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 8:24 AM PaulK has seen this message but not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4542 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 49 of 138 (520977)
08-25-2009 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by PaulK
08-25-2009 7:31 AM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
On the comment about evolutionists denying God:
Ok maybe that comment was a bit excessive. It is true of some evolutionists but I guess not all.
Edited by Arphy, : Just added the top line to show what i was responding to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 08-25-2009 7:31 AM PaulK has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by cavediver, posted 08-25-2009 8:32 AM Arphy has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 50 of 138 (520980)
08-25-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Arphy
08-25-2009 8:24 AM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
Ok maybe that comment was a bit excessive.
the pride of the Christian really does have no bound...
"a bit excessive" !!! It was an outright falsehood, whether deliberate or not. And you wonder why you generate such hostility in others. And when you talk about denying God, are you talking about just Yahweh, or were you including Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, and Thor?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 8:24 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 9:39 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 51 of 138 (520999)
08-25-2009 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Arphy
08-25-2009 7:00 AM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
Arphy writes:
Are there really any creationists on this forum who believe that God directly creates each and every species? Please show me, as I have not seen or heard of any.
While I think they would substitute the word "kinds" for "species," this type of creationist is very common here. You don't find too many creationists who argue that speciation is impossible, but most do argue that "kindiation" is impossible, and that God directly created each and every kind. This appears to be what you believe.
Putting this in the context of the scientific method, presumably we all believe in speciation because that is what the evidence suggests. The belief of some of us in "kind" boundaries that define the limits of evolutionary change is not suggested by any evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 7:00 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 9:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2807 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 52 of 138 (521040)
08-25-2009 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Arphy
08-25-2009 7:00 AM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
Hi, Arphy.
Arphy writes:
If this were the case then nobody would be on here, as a change in biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection is a vital part of creation theory. The two are not opposed.
Tell that to the creationist camp: the evolutionists have known this for years.
You are correct that creationists accept natural selection.
You are not correct that creationists accept mutation.
One of the primary thrusts of creationist "research" has been the attempt to discredit the notion of beneficial mutations. You may personally accept mutation as a part of your personal views, but this is not representative of the creationist/IDist community at large.
-----
Arphy writes:
In commen language when you mention the debate creation vs Evolution to someone the thought is (or should be if they have some knowledge of the history of the debate): Old universe and old earth where life originated as a simple single celled organism which through various processes proceeded to give us the diversity of life that we have today VS Comparitively young earth, Creation by God of various kinds of organisms which diversified to the diversity of life we have today, most fossils laid down by a catastrophic world wide flood.
And, when most people see the name "Arphy," I imagine it conjures up the image of a little dog that says, "Arf! Arf!" However, your avatar is a cat. You should conform to the common perception and change your avatar to a dog.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 7:00 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 9:07 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4542 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 53 of 138 (521092)
08-25-2009 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Blue Jay
08-25-2009 2:15 PM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
quote:
You are not correct that creationists accept mutation.
One of the primary thrusts of creationist "research" has been the attempt to discredit the notion of beneficial mutations.
What???, I think you have misunderstood the position of creationists and IDers. In fact creationists do accept mutations just not the notion of information increasing beneficial mutations, there is a difference between the two.
Just because my nickname is Arphy doesn't refute my argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Blue Jay, posted 08-25-2009 2:15 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Blue Jay, posted 08-26-2009 9:05 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4542 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 54 of 138 (521097)
08-25-2009 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
08-25-2009 9:51 AM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
quote:
The belief of some of us in "kind" boundaries that define the limits of evolutionary change is not suggested by any evidence.
The problem here is that we view the process differently. We do not say that there are limits to evolutionary change but that this change is degenerative rather then producing more and more complex organisms and systems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 08-25-2009 9:51 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 08-25-2009 9:47 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 08-25-2009 10:00 PM Arphy has replied
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 08-26-2009 8:43 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4542 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 55 of 138 (521098)
08-25-2009 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by cavediver
08-25-2009 8:32 AM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
quote:
the pride of the Christian really does have no bound...
how so?
quote:
"a bit excessive" !!! It was an outright falsehood, whether deliberate or not.
As I said before, it may not apply to all evolutionists, but to some, so no, it is not outright falsehood. Maybe I should have used "e.g." instead of "i.e." to have avoided the confusion. However, you can not honestly say that no evolutionist on this forum has ever said something that was a bit hyperbolic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by cavediver, posted 08-25-2009 8:32 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2009 1:32 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 56 of 138 (521099)
08-25-2009 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Arphy
08-25-2009 9:27 PM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
We do not say that there are limits to evolutionary change but that this change is degenerative rather then producing more and more complex organisms and systems.
And your evidence for this is ?????
And would this belief follow from the religious notion of a "fall?" Or is this something you believe that is widely agreed-upon in scientific circles?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 9:27 PM Arphy has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 57 of 138 (521101)
08-25-2009 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Arphy
08-25-2009 9:27 PM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
Hi again Arphy,
The problem here is that we view the process differently. We do not say that there are limits to evolutionary change but that this change is degenerative rather then producing more and more complex organisms and systems.
Curiously, reality is completely unaffected by what you think and say, and it continues to evolve and proceed according the the natural laws of the universe.
Interestingly, if you view things differently, does that mean that you accept lies about the evidence as a valid argument, or do you test the validity of an argument by how completely it explains all the evidence? Do you believe the evidence lies?
Message 53
What???, I think you have misunderstood the position of creationists and IDers. In fact creationists do accept mutations just not the notion of information increasing beneficial mutations, there is a difference between the two.
Fascinatingly, what creationists accept or don't accept also has no effect on reality. Reality is not a democracy or a Chinese menu (one from column A and two from column B) where you can pick and choose what you accept as true.
Message 45
This is a pretty standard definition of evolution on this forum (and in a sense I agree that the word can have that meaning), however this forum is not called: change in biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection vs Creation. If this were the case then nobody would be on here, as a change in biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection is a vital part of creation theory. The two are not opposed.
True enough. I have said for some time that creationists do not really have an issue with evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - rather what they have an issue with is the issue of speciation and the formation of family trees of descent from common ancestors, and the theoretical extension of this to a universal ancient common ancestor ... or to some specific number of original forms.
Old universe and old earth ...
Which is what the evidence shows. Again, we can talk about different interpretations of evidence, true ones and false ones ... if you want to pursue this topic see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. Intriguingly, the evidence of an old earth is more pervasive and self-confirming and accessible to the common person, than the evidence of an oblate spheroid earth and a heliocentric solar system.
... where life originated as a simple single celled organism which through various processes proceeded to give us the diversity of life that we have today ...
Yes, it was Darwin's insight that the process of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - AND the process of speciation - the division of a parent population into reproductively isolated daughter populations - were sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it: from history, pre-history, archeology, paleontology, and from the genetic record; confirmed by geology and astronomy where such comparisons are possible.
... VS Comparitively young earth, Creation by God of various kinds of organisms which diversified to the diversity of life we have today, most fossils laid down by a catastrophic world wide flood.
Which, sadly, fails to explain all the evidence, and which is incoherent at making any kind of predictions for what we keep finding based on predictions based on evolution.
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 54 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 9:27 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Coyote, posted 08-25-2009 10:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 61 by Arphy, posted 08-26-2009 7:11 AM RAZD has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2241 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 58 of 138 (521104)
08-25-2009 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
07-03-2009 9:45 PM


quote:
The scientific method is this:
(1) Formulate a hypothesis.
(2) Using logic, derive predictions from that hypothesis.
(3) Compare the predictions against observation.
(4) If reality corresponds with the predictions of the hypothesis, then we are obliged to regard it a proven theory until and unless we find contrary evidence, at which point we would go back to step (1). Otherwise, we must accept it as a solid theory and can then use it to help us understand and interact with the world.
A clear, concise description, except for one word of point 4. I assume you are trying to explain this to a non-scientist, but I think you have oversimplified it so much that it has become misleading. Here is how I would re-word point 4:
"(4) If reality corresponds with the predictions of the hypothesis, then we are obliged to regard it as verified until and unless we find contrary evidence, at which point we would go back to step (1). Otherwise, we must accept it as a solid theory and can then use it to help us understand and interact with the world."
We can build evidence to verify or validate a theory, but this only means that the theory has not been falsified. It has not (and never can be) proven. This is a crucial foundational concept in the philosophy of science. As wikipedia says about the scientific method, "Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) [a conjecture]. It can only falsify [a conjecture]."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2009 9:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2009 10:49 AM kbertsche has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 59 of 138 (521105)
08-25-2009 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by RAZD
08-25-2009 10:00 PM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
... VS Comparitively young earth, Creation by God of various kinds of organisms which diversified to the diversity of life we have today, most fossils laid down by a catastrophic world wide flood.
Which, sadly, fails to explain all the evidence, and which is incoherent at making any kind of predictions for what we keep finding based on predictions based on evolution.
RAZD, as you well know, diversification is adequately explained by natural means, without the need to insert various deities--for which there is no empirical evidence anyway.
And the global flood myth is consistently contradicted by the evidence. The huge number of tell-tale signs of such a flood some 4,350 years ago that have been found to be absent was enough to convince early creationist geologists seeking to document the flood that it was a myth nearly 200 years ago. Since then the case for a global flood in historic times has faded into incredulity to everyone but biblical literalists, who continue to make up the most fantastic tales to support their belief system. The fact that those tales ("what if" stories) make no sense, are internally contradictory, and are contradicted as well by immense amounts of scientific data makes no difference. Belief in a recent global flood is not altered by any amount of evidence.
That's why its not science. That's why creationism and creation "science" are inherently anti-science.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 08-25-2009 10:00 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17851
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 60 of 138 (521114)
08-26-2009 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Arphy
08-25-2009 9:39 PM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
quote:
As I said before, it may not apply to all evolutionists, but to some, so no, it is not outright falsehood. Maybe I should have used "e.g." instead of "i.e." to have avoided the confusion. However, you can not honestly say that no evolutionist on this forum has ever said something that was a bit hyperbolic.
The problem is that it isn't even true of most evolutionists. So it is worse than hyperbole.
It's just one more piece of dishonest creationist propaganda.
Come to that, so is the "mutations don't create information" argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 9:39 PM Arphy has 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