Denial of evolution III

[Dywyddyr]

But to just accept something, is not what science is supposed to be about.

That assumption has already been shown to be false.

Not all of science, there are some who go against the dogma.

What dogma?

Yes science uses the simplest explanation that fits the observation, but complex explanations can also fit the data..... To simply use it is without any real backing- You are practically leading a whole generation to believe something that is potentially incorrect due to the interpretation assigned to it in the beginning by taking the simplest explanation (that fits the data, I know).

Why would anyone use the more complicated version if it does nothing more than the simpler one does?
Oh, let's throw in invisible hamsters to kinetics because that will make it less simple therefore better?
Strawman again.
You're making ridiculous accusations on no evidence.

Atheism doesn't reject God's existence but it does deny it (lacks belief in it).. How is denying evolution any different?

Denying evidence...

 

[786]

But to just accept something, is not what science is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be about evidence.
Some religious people think like that, and so does science at times.
But for me, I want to make an informed decision, on questions like this.

I Completely agree...

Peace be unto you

 

[Billy T]

... science doesn't know that for sure, it is only a guess. If this doesn't prove to be correct, then does that make the whole theory of evolution wrong.

As proof is only possible in tautalogies, like math. "Science" never has, nor never will, prove anything. Not even that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Science has models of reality and only trys to FALSIFY them. When one is falsified, it is replaced or modified. So our current models are refinements of more simple prior ones.

You logic is too silly to even be called "logic."

For example the fact that science can not prove that the sun will rise tomorrow does not show that the scientific model of the solar system is wrong.
Likewise fact that science can not prove evolution does not show that it is wrong.

The theory of evolution has had many test, made predictions which were later confirmed, and has had a few minor modifications from the original version Darwin proposed.

What tests has the "GodmadeIt" guess passed? Can you name even one? or it it just untested, assumed dogma?

 

[786]

Why would anyone use the more complicated version if it does nothing more than the simpler one does?

So you're basically choosing the simpler version on preference- you don't know if the complex version explains even more things, or are more fundamentally true.

Does A hit B or B hits A = the result of them is the same but the fundamental truth of what is happening is different depending on which one you choose.

Denying evidence...

No, I'm denying the interpretation of that evidence.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Science has models of reality and only trys to FALSIFY them. When one is falsified, it is replaced or modified. So our current models are refinements of more simple prior ones.

So has science falsified complex interpretation of the data before they chose to use their simple explanation to represent the data?

Peace be unto you

 

[hay_you]

“
And if science can get to the point that they can create life in a lab, that 's all it shows. The experiments do not show that it could happen on it's own, or did happen that way. And the experiments are not accurate because science wants to do it fast, rather than work at it for a million years, with all the variables that would include.
”
And you still fail to understand the point and the import of experiments.

“
It doesn't do science nay good to bury their head in the sand about this.
”
Going by the evidence so far the ONLY head buried in the sand is yours.

“
I do believe in a creator. I also believe that the creation we see on this earth is for this earth. I also think that the evidence from science supports this. From the start to life and the fossil records and many other proofs as well. It isn't just a religious belief though.
”
No, it's a religious belief.

“
That is why I am talking with science, this discussion is just about science.
”
So far the only talking you've done with/ about science is to distort it.

“
I have already established that science doesn't know how life started
”
You haven't established anything, all you've done is repeat what science itself has said.

“
The thing is, that science and creation are really not at odds at all.
”
Yes they are.

I do understand the importance of experimentation, but you have to understand the results you get. That is why theories are theories, they have to be proven, before they are evidence or facts. In my bread example , The theories on how to make bread and the experimentation (making it) shows that with intelligence bread can be made. But it doesn't show that it can just happen on it's own. You have to understand the results and what they mean.

No, it's a religious belief.

Actually it's not. I am not bringing anything up about who a the creator is. We are only discussing science and what it has found and it is saying.

 

[jpappl]

Hay,

Sorry but I have to break this up.

I know they use theories to research in a certain area, that's fine. But what science says should be based on the evidence.

It is. Can you give me an example where science is not using evidence to back a claim ?

As for the start to life creation is very possible. And if science can get to the point that they can create life in a lab, that 's all it shows

So, your plan when life is created in a lab from nothing is to move the bar. If we can create life from nothing are we not gods ?

The experiments do not show that it could happen on it's own, or did happen that way

They certainly would show that they could happen on their own, they may or may not prove that it happened that way. The problem will be, nobody can say for 100% certain that is the exact way that it occurred because there will be many possibilites for what exactly occurred.

However, is that an excuse to throw our hands up and say god did it. When we have this mountain of evidence to support our current theories, including when it happens, creating life from non-life to prove it's possible.

There is no evidence of god or gods creating the universe.

And the experiments are not accurate because science wants to do it fast, rather than work at it for a million years, with all the variables that would include.

LOL

Besides it is taken man many decades to get where they are now on this question and have still much more to,learn. This is all intelligence. ( creation)
It doesn't do science nay good to bury their head in the sand about this.

Nobody is burying their heads about it, myself and others are confused as to why you believe science or scientists are in denial about this. There are not. This is something that either you have created in your own mind or that you have been told by others who do not understand.

Again you are stuck in time. You want science to have all the answers in decades, my you are a patient one aren't you.

We may not have the answers in our lifetimes, get used to that idea. What you are doing is forcing a decision instead of realizing that you don't have to have an answer, why make one up.

You claim that science is making up claims, evolution for example, and yet with all of the evidence for evolution and the lack of evidence for a god creation scenario, you are choosing the god creation scenario.

So what we find is that you are ignoring all of the evidence and choose to believe in magic.

I do believe in a creator. I also believe that the creation we see on this earth is for this earth. I also think that the evidence from science supports this

Ok, so what happens to your belief when we find life on another planet ?

Which is why I asked the question. Because that will happen, so be prepared.

A creator and who he is , doesn't affect this at this point. Because what science has found and has evidence for, should stand on it's own.

And it does, and if they don't have an answer then they can create theories based on evidence they currently have and see if things fit or don't fit. We don't have the luxury of making crap up and calling it truth.

Now, what does your religious texts tell you about this creation ?

Do the discoveries of science support or contradict the texts ?

I have already established that science doesn't know how life started, creation is still a possibility even with science, they can't rule that out.

Correct, not yet anyway.

The thing is, that science and creation are really not at odds at all.

If you are talking about a creator (god) in the biblical sense then I believe they are at odds.

Science is more comfortable with evolution than the start to life, so I am hopeful we can get into that soon here.

Again it's about finding the truth and not making crap up just because we want an answer.

Ultimately, all we may be able to provide is the best answer, IOW an answer that nothing dis-proves but still is not proveable. Where all of the other answers have flaws, they would be discarded.

You have to choose to throw out all of the evidence that supports science in favor of magical sky beings which there is absolutely no evidence to support

 

[hay_you]

“
Originally Posted by hay_you
The truth is that science does not know how life started!
”
Strawman.
Non-sequitur.

“
I also intend to show from the evidence from science itself that evolution is not correct. I use scientific evidence. So this is not just my opinion. It is based on evidence.
”
Then present it.
No need for discussion until the "evidence" has been laid out.

That is the truth science does not know how life started.And as others have pointed out that is correct.

I would like to get into this question of evolution.
I have asked about where science starts with this. So give me a starting point where science begins with evolution. Then we can discuss it from there on.

 

[hay_you]

Why would anyone use the more complicated version if it does nothing more than the simpler one does?
Oh, let's throw in invisible hamsters to kinetics because that will make it less simple therefore better?
Strawman again.
You're making ridiculous accusations on no evidence.

If the evidence is simple and strait forward that is great. Go with that. If the evidence is more complicated you have to go with that. But you go where the evidence takes you. Sometimes there is a big picture that also has to have many evidences to understand the the bigger picture.
I have another little example.
Say there is an orchestra playing some master piece of music. Now a scientist could grab a few notes and tell you everything you want about those notes, but then says, there is no music, it is just notes of sound that theoretically, could happen if the wind came through those trees in a certain way, at a certain time of the day. I really do think science is missing the bigger picture, and as a result their interpretation of the evidence they found brings them to a wrong conclusion.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

But the reason I brought has nothing to do with religious interpretation but rather the how science itself interprets by allowing for simple-explanations as a standard (which has nothing to do with the scientific method)

Ignoring for a moment the nonsense about this not being part of the scientific method, explain, with examples, why this is a problem

 

[Billy T]

So has science falsified complex interpretation of the data before they chose to use their simple explanation to represent the data?

Yes, on several occasions. Here is one simple enough for you to understand:

Before the current understanding of heat and temperature for several centuries there was the Philogestion model. It passed many tests. Predicted the resulting temperature when two different temperature liquids were mixed (and in general got 100% of ALL caloric measurment experiments correctly modeled). Had the concept of specific heats and heat capacity correct, etc.

It also help understand why fires make heat, can boil water etc. (Finely divided matter could not hold as much Philogestion as dense matter so when log burned, Philogestion was released to the air, etc.)

I am not sure it is true but legend has it that Lord Kevin (or Joule?) sort of accidently subject the Philogestion Theory / model to a test which it failed.

He was placed in charge of a cannon factory. The workers there knew to pour water into the bore hole that were drilling in the casting to keep the bit from over heating / becoming dull too quickly. They were simple workers not well versed in Philogestion theory / model so did not think about where was the Philogestion that was boiling away the water came from. (but Kelvin or Joule did.)

Philogestion Theory said Philogestion is always conserved, but when boring the cannon bores, that was being violated - (Both cannon and the water became warmer and nothing became colder)

The Philogestion Theory was falsified! And replaced by one which recognized that heat is a form of energy, not a massless substance found more in hot bodies than cold ones.

That is how Science works / advances - by FALSIFYING models not by proving models. If you could falsify evolution after thousands have tried for more than 100 years you surely would get at least one Noble prize.

--------------------
BTW you also seem to have a misunderstanding here: "they chose to use their simple explanation to represent the data"

Scientists do not "chose" to used a simple explaination, but the simplest that can explain the observations. Sometime the advance of theory does result in a great simplification. For example all of dozens of different rules and laws, many of which did not even see to be related were reduce to only four, relatively simple equations, by Maxwell, who then used these equations to PREDICT radio waves should exist. (Hertz demonstrated they did a few years later.) However, this tends to be the exception. Quantum mechanics is more complex than classical mechanics, but is in some sense an extension of it. (The Hamiltonian methodogy QM uses was a well known principle of classical mechanics.)

 

[hay_you]

As proof is only possible in tautalogies, like math. "Science" never has, nor never will, prove anything. Not even that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Science has models of reality and only trys to FALSIFY them. When one is falsified, it is replaced or modified. So our current models are refinements of more simple prior ones.

You logic is too silly to even be called "logic."

For example the fact that science can not prove that the sun will rise tomorrow does not show that the scientific model of the solar system is wrong.
Likewise fact that science can not prove evolution does not show that it is wrong.

The theory of evolution has had many test, made predictions which were later confirmed, and has had a few minor modifications from the original version Darwin proposed.

What tests has the "GodmadeIt" guess passed? Can you name even one? or it it just untested, assumed dogma?

If science cannot prove anything then why say anything. Or even give an opinion. This is a cop out. Because science does try to understand , and prove things. And they have and learned some amazing things. So I don't think that about science at all.

For example the fact that science can not prove that the sun will rise tomorrow does not show that the scientific model of the solar system is wrong.
Likewise fact that science can not prove evolution does not show that it is wrong.

I thought from sciences point of view both these things were proved.
But I do get your point , science may not be able to prove certain things, but in time maybe proved correct. This is the same as Religions.

The comment on evolution, is one I would like to get into.
Because from the evidence that science has found, evolution as science is saying, is impossible.

Can we start from a single cell, or where does evolution start for science?

 

[786]

That is how Science works / advances - by FALSIFYING models not by proving models. If you could falsify evolution after thousands have tried for more than 100 years you surely would get at least one Noble prize.

Hmm.... I was referring to interpretation complex vs simple. Anyways I personally have no interest in falsifying Evolution because I really don't give a damn if evolution is correct or not- although it would be an interesting thing to do- and it would be worthy of a Nobel Prize- what am I going to do with it? lol


Peace be unto you

 

[John99]

If science cannot prove anything then why say anything. Or even give an opinion.

that is a common and fallacious statement. i am not even sure what it means and i doubt he does too.

 

[786]

Ignoring for a moment the nonsense about this not being part of the scientific method, explain, with examples, why this is a problem

A problem? Its not a problem... per se.... but the question is 'denial of evolution'- you can deny evolution because its composed up of simple explanations- which may not necessarily represent the reality of the matter

"Does A hit B or B hits A = the result of them is the same but the fundamental truth of what is happening is different depending on which one you choose."

I'm not trying to show that evolution is wrong, I'm just saying their interpretation of the data may not be correct, and so if someone has a different interpretation which fits the data- it is equally valid, at least in terms of understanding what is going on.

Peace be unto you

 

[hay_you]

Hay,

Sorry but I have to break this up.



It is. Can you give me an example where science is not using evidence to back a claim ?



So, your plan when life is created in a lab from nothing is to move the bar. If we can create life from nothing are we not gods ?







LOL



Nobody is burying their heads about it, myself and others are confused as to why you believe science or scientists are in denial about this. There are not. This is something that either you have created in your own mind or that you have been told by others who do not understand.

Again you are stuck in time. You want science to have all the answers in decades, my you are a patient one aren't you.

We may not have the answers in our lifetimes, get used to that idea. What you are doing is forcing a decision instead of realizing that you don't have to have an answer, why make one up.

You claim that science is making up claims, evolution for example, and yet with all of the evidence for evolution and the lack of evidence for a god creation scenario, you are choosing the god creation scenario.

So what we find is that you are ignoring all of the evidence and choose to believe in magic.



Ok, so what happens to your belief when we find life on another planet ?

Which is why I asked the question. Because that will happen, so be prepared.



And it does, and if they don't have an answer then they can create theories based on evidence they currently have and see if things fit or don't fit. We don't have the luxury of making crap up and calling it truth.

Now, what does your religious texts tell you about this creation ?

Do the discoveries of science support or contradict the texts ?



Correct, not yet anyway.



If you are talking about a creator (god) in the biblical sense then I believe they are at odds.



Again it's about finding the truth and not making crap up just because we want an answer.

Ultimately, all we may be able to provide is the best answer, IOW an answer that nothing dis-proves but still is not proveable. Where all of the other answers have flaws, they would be discarded.

You have to choose to throw out all of the evidence that supports science in favor of magical sky beings which there is absolutely no evidence to support

Evolution is one area.

Life is not created from nothing. Even the universe is not created from nothing. The creation accounts say that man was created from the dust of the ground.

They certainly would show that they could happen on their own, they may or may not prove that it happened that way. The problem will be, nobody can say for 100% certain that is the exact way that it occurred because there will be many possibilites for what exactly occurred.

However, is that an excuse to throw our hands up and say god did it. When we have this mountain of evidence to support our current theories, including when it happens, creating life from non-life to prove it's possible.

There is no evidence of god or gods creating the universe.

You don't have to through your hands up or give up. I'm certainty not against science pursuing this research. You always learn a lot from research.
The experiments cannot show that life started on it's own. The creation account says the the dust of the earth was used to make man. Even if science wants to start smaller than that, they can only use the material at hand,( the dust of the ground) The experiment is it succeeds is doing what the creator did. If science wants to prove not just theorize, they need to find life coming from non life, to show that, without interference.
That's why the bread example fits. Because even with the materials here on the earth,it takes intelligence to make it.

But there is no evidence that all the universe could happen without creation.
But the creation of life and all we see, is evidence of intelligent design and creation.
Some scientists don't like the idea that creationist say Goddoneit. But if that's what happened, you have to say that.
It is no different than science saying it just happened over billions of years , as though in a huge number of years anything could happen. It couldn't make bread, or a Harley.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

So I don't think that about science at all.

You've made that abundantly clear in your posts so far.

what is less clear is why you joined a sciforum to post your ignorant brainfarts

 

[Billy T]

...Can we start from a single cell, or where does evolution start for science?

You are trolling or at least repeating your questions. - I answered you long ago. See:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2397705&postcount=61

Yes life starts with a very simple cell. At that thread I told one way (of many) it may have happend (and is extremely likely to have, since "zillions" of not quite life cells were formed every day in the oceans for millions of years.)

Again one cannot prove it did - there is just a lot of supporting evidence and not any known reason why it did not happen that way.

There is NO evidence for the alternative POV that GodmadeIt. And that is not even an explaination for the origins of life or intellgence as begs the question: "WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?"

there is no answer know to the question what is the "first cause" - it does nothing but sweep that question under the rug for simple minded people to say "GodmadeIt." See why that is so at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2397595&postcount=48

 

[synthesizer-patel]

A problem? Its not a problem... per se.... but the question is 'denial of evolution'- you can deny evolution because its composed up of simple explanations- which may not necessarily represent the reality of the matter

"Does A hit B or B hits A = the result of them is the same but the fundamental truth of what is happening is different depending on which one you choose."

I'm not trying to show that evolution is wrong, I'm just saying their interpretation of the data may not be correct, and so if someone has a different interpretation which fits the data- it is equally valid, at least in terms of understanding what is going on.

Peace be unto you

while the notion that you can reject the THEORY of evolution (evolution itself is a fact dont forget) simply on the basis that it is composed of simple explanations is utter nonsense (ignoring for the moment the fact that it isnt made up of simple explanations), you are right that if there is a more complex theory that fits the data better, then we would select the complex theory over the simple one - that is precisely how science works.

So.......

Point 1 - if that's how science works anyway - and if we all (with a few notable exceptions ) know that- why even bother to bring it up as a talking point?

Point 2.
There is no competing theory to evolution - simple or complex - at this moment in time

 

[786]

while the notion that you can reject the THEORY of evolution (evolution itself is a fact dont forget) simply on the basis that it is composed of simple explanations is utter nonsense (ignoring for the moment the fact that it isnt made up of simple explanations), you are right that if there is a more complex theory that fits the data better, then we would select the complex theory over the simple one - that is precisely how science works.

First I have not said or used the word 'reject' Evolution- You should understand denial and rejection is not the same thing.

Secondly I didn't say a complex theory would 'better fit' the data- I'm saying if they fit the data with equivalently- even then the simplest explanation is taken- this is how science works.

So.......

Point 1 - if that's how science works anyway - and if we all (with a few notable exceptions ) know that- why even bother to bring it up as a talking point?

Because you're feeding your 'science' to the sheeple.

Point 2.
There is no competing theory to evolution - simple or complex - at this moment in time

You don't realize that I'm not questioning Evolution as a theory but the interpretation of the evidence that makes up the theory.

Peace be unto you