13 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarDo you have a problem with "Ronald Reagan used to be the President of the United States of America"? Or do you prefer "One explanation for how past events might have occurred is that maybe Ronald Reagan used to be President of the United States"?
[b]with some testable predictions.
That's where people make a faulty assumption. Just because something can be done one way, does it mean it must be done that way?
Science is supposed to be about making a hypothesis and testing it, then reproducing that event. It is about what we can do now, not about how things might have happened in the past.
the leap of faith about something that you can't reproduce is just that, a leap of faith.[/b]
If the former is ok with you, then you don't have a problem with "this is what did happen".
13 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarThen your statement about having a problem with "this is what did happen" was not correct. You accept some evidence for such statements (eyewitnesses and "records" ), but refuse to accept other evidence (DNA patterns, radioactive dating, the locations of fossils, the structures of fossils and organisms' bodies, etc).
I have no problem with RR being a former President of the US. We have eye witness accounts. What eye witness accounts or records do we have for evolution?
We do have eyewitness accounts and records for evolution, though not for the whole macroevolutionary process that led from first cells to the life that exists now.
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by Eladar-whoever are the people that observe the indirect evidence such as the fossils (although that is not “eye witness” accounts) and whoever are the people that observe the changes that have occurred within local populations of some species within modern times (that is “eye witness” accounts) ). I don’t know the specific names of many of these people (I can only give two names at the top of my head) but that doesn’t change the fact that they all exist.
I have no problem with RR being a former President of the US. We have eye witness accounts. What eye witness accounts or records do we have for evolution?
In addition, you don’t really need ANY “eye witness” accounts to rationally know that something is so because you can rely on indirect evidence. Well before astronauts went into space, people rationally know the Earth was round through indirect evidence even though nobody had actually seen this with their own eyes.
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarWhat about, "this is what we think happened based on the best available evidence"? That is what scientific knowledge is all about. There's no leap of faith required. It's not considered absolute knowledge--it's considered provisional knowledge, and if a better hypothesis or contradictory evidence is presented, the knowledge is changed.
[b]with some testable predictions.
That's where people make a faulty assumption. Just because something can be done one way, does it mean it must be done that way?
Science is supposed to be about making a hypothesis and testing it, then reproducing that event. It is about what we can do now, not about how things might have happened in the past.
...[text shortened]... the leap of faith about something that you can't reproduce is just that, a leap of faith.[/b]
"Faith" is believing in something whether or not you know it to be true, whether or not you have concrete evidence, and that's all well and good, you are welcome to do that. No faith is required to believe something supported by evidence. Nor is faith required to disbelieve something for which no evidence exists.
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseYes, He is going to stop evil forever, when He does it will be completely
I was asking you in your religion, is it recognized that God will stop us from ruining the planet? Is it thought that this god will not let us screw the place up?
stopped, but before the end it get much worse with how we treat each
other and natural disasters as well.
Kelly
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by PalynkaThere is not an absence of evidence, just the ignoring of things that
Close enough, but I want to go further. It is a necessary argument to be able to claim that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (for any God who is supposed to have a tangible influence on the universe).
require design lying in front of everyone, such as everything from
nothing, getting various complex sub-systems working, let alone
working together in a massively complex system, than having them
work together forming niches in various ecosystems and so on. Where
people who deal with this stuff just stop and say we cannot know how
or why these things first occurred they ignore there could be a very
sound reason for this, they just refuse to acknowledge the possibility
so they can continue down road with the claim evidence is on their
side when the entire universe says otherwise.
Kelly
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPeople tend to promote their own beliefs.
Correct. I don't think anyone's trying to claim that biology proves the lack of God in childrens' science classes. IDers are trying to claim that there is proof of a "designer" in childrens' science classes however.
Kelly
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by convectExcept with some pieces of evdience you have to believe what they say
What about, "this is what we think happened based on the best available evidence"? That is what scientific knowledge is all about. There's no leap of faith required. It's not considered absolute knowledge--it's considered provisional knowledge, and if a better hypothesis or contradictory evidence is presented, the knowledge is changed.
"Faith" is belie ...[text shortened]... y evidence. Nor is faith required to disbelieve something for which no evidence exists.
is true about it before it should be counted as evidence. In a trial half
of the battle about evidence is what does this piece really mean, and
the side that convinces the jury wins, it does not always mean they
were right about what they were saying, just that they won the debate
on that piece of evidence's meaning.
Kelly
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm not sure exactly what you are saying here. And do not forget that though both are processes of using evidence-based reason to draw conclusions, some very significant differences distinguishf scientific inquiry from a trial in a court of law.
Except with some pieces of evdience you have to believe what they say
is true about it before it should be counted as evidence. In a trial half
of the battle about evidence is what does this piece really mean, and
the side that convinces the jury wins, it does not always mean they
were right about what they were saying, just that they won the debate
on that piece of evidence's meaning.
Kelly
For instance, in scientific inquiry, winning the debate about what a piece of evidence means is achieved by appealing to certain facts and to known scientific theories (and sometimes these theories get blown apart--this is part of the process of advancing knowledge). Scientists are not trained in debate and argument the way lawyers are--we are trained in methods of collecting, analyzing and evaluating data. If a hypothesis fits the evidence better than a previous hypothesis, and makes testable predictions more accurately than the previous hypothesis, then the point is won. I can think of disagreements that have existed in the scientific community and sometimes these disagreements can become quite heated, but they only exist because of a lack of concrete evidence. Once the evidence is available, the debate is over. Debate skills are less important than doing actual work.
And this does not necessarily mean the new hypothesis is absolutely right--it's just the best one we have.
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI have an advanced scientific education, and I do not know the religious or political beliefs of the vast majority of any of my former or current teachers, nor of my colleagues nor any student I have had. Nor has any student of mine ever had so much as a hint of my own religious or political beliefs. Those are completely irrelevant to the work of science, and inappropriate to bring to work or the classroom. The only people whose political or religious beliefs I do know are those who are either personal friends of mine, or those who promote their beliefs, and they are always able to separate their scientific work from their personal causes.
People tend to promote their own beliefs.
Kelly
I've been told a few times by Christians that I was somehow "brainwashed" into being an atheist by my University Education. The accusation always comes from people who have NEVER had a college-level science class for majors. Religion (and politics) do not compose even the slightest part of scientific education.
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJay…There is not an absence of evidence, just the ignoring of things that
There is not an absence of evidence, just the ignoring of things that
require design lying in front of everyone, such as everything from
nothing, getting various complex sub-systems working, let alone
working together in a massively complex system, than having them
work together forming niches in various ecosystems and so on. Where
people who deal with ...[text shortened]... n road with the claim evidence is on their
side when the entire universe says otherwise.
Kelly
require design lying in front of everyone, such as everything from
nothing, …
I assume you are referring to the big bang -if so, you have misunderstood it.
The big bang theory doesn’t say nor imply in any way “everything came from nothing”.
…together in a massively complex system, than having them
work together forming niches in various ecosystems and so on.
…
I assume you are referring to the design of living things. Evolution explains that design (which is blind design without intelligence) perfectly well without any divine intervention. Therefore, the fact that life has been designed (by evolution) is not “evidence” that there is a god. In fact, the design flaws evolution has created is evidence that no intelligence is involved in the design of living things.
13 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayActually there's been a substantial amount of work done on how the appearence of design came to be. A simple survey course on the topic covers this. www.talkorigins.org also has a very good discussion on this. No one is ignoring anything, and no designer is necessary to explain this. Indeed, it was this very discussion that made me into a strong atheist. Discovering that no designer was necessary, and the fact that when you take a really good look at most of these systems, they are actually quite poorly designed, led me to be a an atheist (a direct consequence of looking into the question at the prodding of a theist, so I suppose I should thank the creationists). Basically, if there's a designer, the world is very disappointing; if there's no designer, it's remarkable. (I used to be one of those kind of theists who believed in front-loading and intervention.)
There is not an absence of evidence, just the ignoring of things that
require design lying in front of everyone, such as everything from
nothing, getting various complex sub-systems working, let alone
working together in a massively complex system, than having them
work together forming niches in various ecosystems and so on. Where
people who deal with ...[text shortened]... n road with the claim evidence is on their
side when the entire universe says otherwise.
Kelly
As far as questions like "how is there something from nothing" or other mysteries of nature, I do find the idea of a God or a Creative Force does earn a place among the various conjectures. But in the absence of supporting evidence (and the appearence of design has been discounted) I cannot entertain the idea of a God or a Creator as anything more than a conjecture (especially considering the logical problems entailed by such a being). Thus, I don't believe.
Of course, I am telling this to you even though you have already made it clear you do not accept scientific argument as evidence, preferring uneducated speculation. So this is pointless, isn't it? You've already decided what the truth is, and will fit everything around that truth.
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by PBE6As far as testable predictions go, here's what they have to do in order to advance ID into the realm of science:
Created by me, your new God. Everybody pissed? Good. Now, let's do some detective work instead of bickering.
Question:
Let's assume that God the Intelligent Designer designed all the living creatures of the world according to His plan. This is our model. Now, what predictions could we make about such a world using this model? That is, how would we e ...[text shortened]... the data, so a "wrong" answer here doesn't kill the model.
Get cracking, Creationists!
Demonstrate for every case tested, that what biologists now believe to be evolutionary precursors are in fact degraded versions. For example, demonstrate that the secretory system that is similar to the bacterial flagellum came *after* the flagellum itself. This demonstration *must* meet the standards of evidence currently employed in science today. Molecular genetics will probably be required.
Do it once, and I'll find it interesting and be curious to see further work done. Show it is a reliable result--that what biologists now consider to be evolutionary precursors are, for the most part, degraded forms of a more perfectly designed system, then you have a good start for claiming that ID is science.
Good luck!
I've been racking my brains, and this so far is the only positive, testable prediction that can come out of ID.
13 Oct 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI guess you are correct. I'll accept certain evidences and I will not accept others. One is based on knowing the facts, the other is guessing.
Then your statement about having a problem with "this is what did happen" was not correct. You accept some evidence for such statements (eyewitnesses and "records" ), but refuse to accept other evidence (DNA patterns, radioactive dating, the locations of fossils, the structures of fossils and organisms' bodies, etc).
We do have eyewitness accounts ...[text shortened]... the whole macroevolutionary process that led from first cells to the life that exists now.
I know you don't see the difference between the two, but that's because you've eaten the cheese.