It's only an illusion

[Zosimus]

You have to ignore the entire rational universe to claim that it doesn't work.

Just as the Earth is believed to revolve around the sun on a 365.25ish day cycle, so too the universe could be on a cycle.

Just because you note the days getting shorter does not mean that you can extrapolate backwards to say that at one point in the past it was light 24-hours a day.

 

[Zosimus]

It is incorrect to call Newton's work "false". We know under which conditions it works. We know under which conditions it fails. By using the laws of gravity only where we know it works is still a valid use of Newton's work.

The forces of gravity simplify to Newton's "Law" under specific situations. There may be conditions where Einstein's theories break down. In fact they do on the quantum level. But on the large scale that we usually work in Einstein's theories work amazingly well. The same goes for Newton's work.

Using theories under the conditions they were created for is fine even for theories that have been shown to be "wrong".

Since known wrong theories can still be useful under certain circumstances, you cannot claim that supposed usefulness of a theory is evidence for its correctness.

 

[Seipai]

So you build a mathematical model. This model is then tested. If what is found is in accordance with the mathematical model, then the model is considered correct?

Please outline the mathematical model for evolution. To how many decimal places has the theory of evolution been found accurate?

I didn't say that sort of mathematical model was built. Math is a tool that helps show that evolution is a correct model. It can be used as a tool to debunk evolution too. No one has managed to do so. Evidence and tools cut both ways.

You seem to have a creationists "all or nothing" approach to life. That is always a dead end mentally eventually. That is why nihilists never accomplish anything of note.

 

[Zosimus]

We can observe the effects of those objects. The theories may be wrong. But positing that they are true we have observed electrons, we have observed black holes, and we have observed dark matter.

There is more to observing than simply looking directly at an object.

Christians tell me that we can observe the effect of Jesus' atoning sacrifice. Just as electrons are known to exist, so too Jesus' atoning sacrifice must also exist.

Agree? Obviously not. I await the next salvo.

 

[Seipai]

Since known wrong theories can still be useful under certain circumstances, you cannot claim that supposed usefulness of a theory is evidence for its correctness.

Don't be foolish. Of course you can. If that theory can be effectively used that shows it is still essentially correct for a correct limited use of it.

The fact that we used Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to get to the Moon and back is huge support for the effectiveness of that work.

 

[Zosimus]

Ok, so you don't like science, that much is clear.

Do you agree with say; germ theory, theory of gravity?

I am agnostic about all these theories.

 

[bhsmte]

I am agnostic about all these theories.

When you are sick, do you go to the doctor for treatment?

Have you ever taken medication to treat a sickness?

 

[Zosimus]

No it isn't.

If not, it's rather similar to the definition I found at What is Evolution?

Tell me, then, what IS the definition of evolution?

 

[HitchSlap]

I am agnostic about all these theories.

Is this code-speak for "I haven't taken the time to educate myself about the scientific method, but I'm qualified to rail against it?"

 

[bhsmte]

Is this code-speak for "I haven't taken the time to educate myself about the scientific method, but I'm qualified to rail against it?"

This would appear to be a; philosophy/ideology over evidence, at all costs phenomenon.

 

[Seipai]

Christians tell me that we can observe the effect of Jesus' atoning sacrifice. Just as electrons are known to exist, so too Jesus' atoning sacrifice must also exist.

Agree? Obviously not. I await the next salvo.

Right now I am merely debating science. Religion is more of a personal matter and most of the time the effects are only evident to the individual making the claim. How my religion effects me cannot be exported to others. Perhaps someone will ask me how my religion aids me and I could tell them. That is not proper evidence since others cannot really observe it.


Religion is not evidence based. To try to argue it is will lead to defeat. My "evidence" is not evidence for others and so technically is not evidence. So I will not offer evidence for my beliefs.

 

[Zosimus]

Tell us specifically how you would improve the scientific method, to understand the physical world?

Are there any established scientific theories you agree with? If so, why?

Which scientific theories do you disagree with? If so, why?

Sure. It's called Popperian falsification. Of course most pro-evolutionist types don't like either Popper or Lakatos because Popper said that Darwinism wasn't science and Lakatos said "...nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific..."

 

[Seipai]

Sure. It's called Popperian falsification. Of course most pro-evolutionist types don't like either Popper or Lakatos because Popper said that Darwinism wasn't science and Lakatos said "...nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific..."

Most scientists don't like Popper or Lakatos because their work was non-productive.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure. It's called Popperian falsification. Of course most pro-evolutionist types don't like either Popper or Lakatos because Popper said that Darwinism wasn't science and Lakatos said "...nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific..."

Please describe how this falsification would improve science, please be specific. Also, let us know how this would falsify any current theories in existence.

Lastly, do you agree with any current scientific theories? If so, why?

 

[Zosimus]

Don't be foolish. Of course you can. If that theory can be effectively used that shows it is still essentially correct for a correct limited use of it.

The fact that we used Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to get to the Moon and back is huge support for the effectiveness of that work.

My theory of batteries is that a battery is filled with an invisible fluid, like water, which flows out when the circuit is connected. The more fluid contained inside the battery, the higher the perceived "voltage" and the current flowing round the circuit is the movement of this invisible liquid. Although we cannot see it, resistors have a certain amount of permeability to this liquid based on invisible holes. The size of these holes determines the resistance of the resistors. Using this theory, I can effectively analyze electric circuits and build amplifiers. Therefore this theory is true.

Agree?

 

[Zosimus]

When you are sick, do you go to the doctor for treatment?

Have you ever taken medication to treat a sickness?

When I need to make a decision, I use something called Decision Theory, which lets me estimate the likelihood of gain when one is right vs. the likelihood of loss when one is wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

When I need to make a decision, I use something called Decision Theory, which lets me estimate the likelihood of gain when one is right vs. the likelihood of loss when one is wrong.

Sounds good, but doesn't answer the question.

When you are sick, do you go to the doctor for treatment?

Have you ever taken medication to treat a sickness?

 

[Seipai]

My theory of batteries is that a battery is filled with an invisible fluid, like water, which flows out when the circuit is connected. The more fluid contained inside the battery, the higher the perceived "voltage" and the current flowing round the circuit is the movement of this invisible liquid. Although we cannot see it, resistors have a certain amount of permeability to this liquid based on invisible holes. The size of these holes determines the resistance of the resistors. Using this theory, I can effectively analyze electric circuits and build amplifiers. Therefore this theory is true.

Agree?

We would have to test your "theory" to see how well it matches to reality. Your so called theory is to vague to be of much use as described. If you started to put some real numbers on your "theory" (and you did use that word incorrectly) then we could test it. Right now all you have is an untestable idea and so it is therefore worthless.

 

[In situ]

I find that inconsistent and if something is inconsistent to this degree why should creationists think it is true?

The illusion they talk about is the idea that design only can be a top-down process, i.e design by creation. The illusion is that design cannot emerge from order and that order is a deteriorate state of design, in other word the idea is that design is always an exclusive top-down process and that is the illusion.

This is what people believed for a long time until Darwin pointed out, and proved in his work Origin of Species, that design also can be a bottom-up process. The message Darwin gave can be shorten to one sentence: give me order and I will give you design.

This is why the idea of design (by creation) is said to be an illusion. It can be both ways....

How things really are is up to observation to determine, and all observation supports a bottom-up process, but if you insists that the process is top-down only (i.e. done by creation) then it is because it only appears to be so for you, hence the illusion of (top-down) design.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sure. It's called Popperian falsification. Of course most pro-evolutionist types don't like either Popper or Lakatos because Popper said that Darwinism wasn't science and Lakatos said "...nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific..."

Do you think what those two guys said is correct?