Is evolution a religion?

[KerrMetric]

if man is imperfect, how could the test he devlops or anyhting he develops be perfect..

Why does something have to be perfect?

When you step on a bathroom scale and weigh yourself the scale need not be perfect (in fact it cannot be) but it is still good enough for the task at hand. As long as you know the error bounds and how to propagate errors in any scientific analysis then you can trust the results to the limits you have determined. When someone states the Earth is 4.5 billion years old there should be an error analysis of the result usually indicated by a +/- delta age just like your weight on the scale would be say 160 lbs +/- 3 lbs or whatever error is appropriat for the scale you used.

 

[billwald]

6 Day Creationists do not seem to understand the problems of scale, limits of error, and tolerances in measurements.

For example, the silly arguments about the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle. In Bible time, pi = 3 was probably within their ability to measure such things - inside their margin of error.

 

[simplyg123]

Why does something have to be perfect?

When you step on a bathroom scale and weigh yourself the scale need not be perfect (in fact it cannot be) but it is still good enough for the task at hand. As long as you know the error bounds and how to propagate errors in any scientific analysis then you can trust the results to the limits you have determined. When someone states the Earth is 4.5 billion years old there should be an error analysis of the result usually indicated by a +/- delta age just like your weight on the scale would be say 160 lbs +/- 3 lbs or whatever error is appropriat for the scale you used.

So Basically you have to "TRUST" an inaccurate but "close enough" test, that consists of a certain "margin of ERROR" Which are just as inaccurate or "close enough"

In other words your saying That the testing to date the earth, is perfect, within this margin of error.

I ask, How can you be so sure your Margin of error is correct or even close enough.

if i add 1 + 0.999999, it does not = 2
and the more multiples of this you make, you get even further from the right answer.

1+1 = 2
1 + 0.999999 = 1.999999

2+1= 3
1.999999 + 0.999999= 2.99998

3+1= 4
2.999998+0.999999 = 3.999997

notice the margin of error grows more and more

being accurate or perfect is in my opinion very important, and the fact science is based on imperfection, is why it cant be trusted

 

[KerrMetric]

So Basically you have to "TRUST" an inaccurate but "close enough" test, that consists of a certain "margin of ERROR" Which are just as inaccurate or "close enough"

Every single technological product you use is designed, produced and tested in this same manner. This is how science and engineering function.

In other words your saying That the testing to date the earth, is perfect, within this margin of error.

It is within the margin of error for the given method.

I ask, How can you be so sure your Margin of error is correct or even close enough.

The laws of physics and the mathematical discipline called statistics.

if i add 1 + 0.999999, it does not = 2
and the more multiples of this you make, you get even further from the right answer.

1+1 = 2
1 + 0.999999 = 1.999999

2+1= 3
1.999999 + 0.999999= 2.99998

3+1= 4
2.999998+0.999999 = 3.999997

notice the margin of error grows more and more

So what? What is the percentage error? And you are assuming a process is linear - not all processes are.

being accurate or perfect is in my opinion very important, and the fact science is based on imperfection, is why it cant be trusted

Why can anything be trusted then. You have never used a single product, machine or tool that is perfect. What you are asking for nothing can deliver in the practical world.

Get out your TV spec sheet. Look at the impedances quoted and such like. Are they exact - no they are not, they will be between some error bound. But the TV works doesn't it?

 

[simplyg123]

The laws of physics and the mathematical discipline called statistics

isnt a statistic just an average?

Why can anything be trusted then. You have never used a single product, machine or tool that is perfect. What you are asking for nothing can deliver in the practical world.

Get out your TV spec sheet. Look at the impedances quoted and such like. Are they exact - no they are not, they will be between some error bound. But the TV works doesn't it?

You are exactly right, nothing done in science is perfect. Which is my exact point. What you believe to be true about the age of the earth, is a guess, based on numbers or averages of numbers, that could possible do be wrong, if there was no chance it would be wrong, it would indeed be perfect.

Product that have been created using science do not work forever.

I believe science to be a great thing. I do not believe man uses it correctly.

If man used exact numbers, i would imagine the product created with science would last for ever.

The point is we do not use accurate numbers or stats, to produce the fruit of science, we get close, but not exact.

Science should be exact. Then it would be perfect.

You cant say a blade of grass grows at the rate of "ABOUT" 3mm a week, and call that science. i could say the rate was ABOUT 5mm a week. The word ABOUT Allows the error

 

[theFijian]

blah blah blah... The fact is God did it.

Who here disputes that God did it?

 

[theFijian]

Science should be exact. Then it would be perfect.

So tell us about your theology, is it perfect?

 

[Brennan]

isnt a statistic just an average?

Simply? No.

 

[KerrMetric]

isnt a statistic just an average?

No - whatever gave you that idea?

You are exactly right, nothing done in science is perfect.

Agreed

Which is my exact point.

No I don't believe that is your point.

What you believe to be true about the age of the earth, is a guess, based on numbers or averages of numbers, that could possible do be wrong, if there was no chance it would be wrong, it would indeed be perfect.

Why do you say guess? A guess would be hard put to attach errors to wouldn't it?

I think you are really out of your depth here. As long as you analyse and propagate the errors correctly (a mathematical exercise) then you are fine.

Product that have been created using science do not work forever.

So?

I believe science to be a great thing. I do not believe man uses it correctly.

That is an appeal to personal belief - a belief held by someone who appears not to know much science. Forgive me if I discard it.

If man used exact numbers, i would imagine the product created with science would last for ever.

This is just getting bizarre.

The point is we do not use accurate numbers or stats, to produce the fruit of science, we get close, but not exact.

And as long as we are close enough that is sufficient.

Science should be exact. Then it would be perfect.

Nothing in a real world application is going to be exact. But again, if it is close enough we are on solid ground.

You cant say a blade of grass grows at the rate of "ABOUT" 3mm a week, and call that science. i could say the rate was ABOUT 5mm a week. The word ABOUT Allows the error

And there is nothing wrong with error. Notice in your example the difference between 3 and 5 is not that significant depending on your application. It's not like you say 3mm per week and I say 28 miles per week. Now that would be a problem.

 

[Melethiel]

If man used exact numbers, i would imagine the product created with science would last for ever.

What makes you think that?

 

[simplyg123]

What makes you think that?

because then it would be 1+1 = 2

not 1 + 1 = .99998

And as long as we are close enough that is sufficient

sufficient. The more i learn about science the more i despise it.

I used to think science was correct, perfect, accurate, factual, But since i have come on CF, specifically my conversations with kerrmetric, i have realized science is worse then i thought. It is not perfect, it is based on "maybe's" and "close enoughs". It is supposed to be the investigation on what we can observe, however has become something else. If we cant observe something, we come up with a theory, and based on things we supposedly do know, we guess what the result, or answer is.

I dont believe science lives up to its definition anymore, i believe there should be a new term, or we use the term science where it doesnt belong. As in evolution, its an insult to science to be called that. Noone has ever observed anything similar to evolution, because it requires the God of time to make it happen

Nothing in a real world application is going to be exact. But again, if it is close enough we are on solid ground

not exactly, flowers bloom just as they were designed too, because they were designed by perfection. However anything the imperfect man applies in "real world" is far from perfect.

when a flower dies it has a purpose, when a batterie dies it is trash.

And there is nothing wrong with error. Notice in your example the difference between 3 and 5 is not that significant depending on your application. It's not like you say 3mm per week and I say 28 miles per week. Now that would be a problem.

well say i take that 5mm instead of the 3mm, and use it to figure another rate, which would be "close" , then used the second rate, to figure another, and so on... eventually the rate i end up with will be wrong, and possibly not even "close"

Like taking a photocopy, the quality is not the same as the original, then take a photocopy of that, and so on. The original quality is nothing like the ending product.

 

[bdarien]

the truest evidence that much of modern science, especially evolution is more religion than anything else is by how little it is based on empirically proved data.
Much of modern day science, especially environmentalism, is based instead on hypothesis and conjecture which is in turn based on other hypothesis and conjecture. Each level of guess work propping itself up and encouraging the building of an ever growing and all consuming house of cards all of which is so fragile that it takes but the slightest bit of honesty by the follower of truth to see its absolute precariousness.

 

[KerrMetric]

sufficient. The more i learn about science the more i despise it.

Bizarre.

I used to think science was correct, perfect, accurate, factual,

Correct, accurate and factual it can be - perfect it cannot be.

But since i have come on CF, specifically my conversations with kerrmetric, i have realized science is worse then i thought. It is not perfect, it is based on "maybe's" and "close enoughs".

So is everything else. The proof of the pudding is "does stuff work". And for the most part it does.

It is supposed to be the investigation on what we can observe, however has become something else. If we cant observe something, we come up with a theory, and based on things we supposedly do know, we guess what the result, or answer is.

You are really taking things the wrong way. And you are mixing things up tremendously. I certainly have not said the things the way you now state them.

I dont believe science lives up to its definition anymore,

You had evidently a definition that nothing in the human world could ever live up to.

i believe there should be a new term, or we use the term science where it doesnt belong. As in evolution, its an insult to science to be called that.

Don't be silly. You are just saying things that you like the sound of. This is gibberish.

Noone has ever observed anything similar to evolution, because it requires the God of time to make it happen

Sorry but you are flat out wrong.

not exactly, flowers bloom just as they were designed too, because they were designed by perfection. However anything the imperfect man applies in "real world" is far from perfect.

LOL - no they do not. You demand perfection from science and then you claim something that is perfect when it fact it can be demonstrated that it is not.

when a flower dies it has a purpose, when a batterie dies it is trash.

Metaphysical claptrap.

well say i take that 5mm instead of the 3mm, and use it to figure another rate, which would be "close" , then used the second rate, to figure another, and so on... eventually the rate i end up with will be wrong, and possibly not even "close"

Oh come on - are you deliberately being daft here? The number at the end will be what it is with an error bound attached. It is either good enough or not - but you seem to think it becomes an unknown with no error bound. This is stupidity. Think about this again!!!!!

Like taking a photocopy, the quality is not the same as the original, then take a photocopy of that, and so on. The original quality is nothing like the ending product.

So what? As long as it is usable for the task you are fine. Boy - you really have some strange misconceptions. Don't drive a car - how can you trust it!!!

 

[Mallon]

The more i learn about science the more i despise it.

Remember that the next time you go to your doctor!

I used to think science was correct, perfect, accurate, factual,

Don't kid yourself. Only God is perfect. (Irony of ironies: TEs have here been accused of making a god of science, yet here we have a YEC who expects perfection from the human pursuit that is science.)

Perhaps your frustration with science comes not from the deficiencies of science itself, but from the unreasonable expectations you have of it?

I dont believe science lives up to its definition anymore

What definition is that? The one you have imposed on it? Or the one that has been understood by real scientists for centuries?

Noone has ever observed anything similar to evolution, because it requires the God of time to make it happen

'Time = God' has been refuted in this very thread. Have you learned nothing about science or evolution in these last six pages? Are we all just wasting our time?

 

[KerrMetric]

the truest evidence that much of modern science, especially evolution is more religion than anything else is by how little it is based on empirically proved data.

Oh boy! How the heck do you "prove data". That is just bizarre.
Do you realise how crazy that sounds?

Much of modern day science, especially environmentalism, is based instead on hypothesis and conjecture which is in turn based on other hypothesis and conjecture. Each level of guess work propping itself up and encouraging the building of an ever growing and all consuming house of cards all of which is so fragile that it takes but the slightest bit of honesty by the follower of truth to see its absolute precariousness.

And your expertise in science is? What's that again? I thought so - no experience whatsoever.

How come all you people slamming the science can't do it? How come you are all insurance agents or burger flippers or housewives or pastors who haven't a clue about science?????????????????????? Funny that isn't it - clueless in the subject but somehow experts on finding errors in it. Yeah right!!!!!

 

[Melethiel]

because then it would be 1+1 = 2

not 1 + 1 = .99998

That's not the section of the post I quoted. Let me ask again. Why do you think that something made by a "perfect science" (whatever that is) should last forever?

 

[simplyg123]

Oh come on - are you deliberately being daft here? The number at the end will be what it is with an error bound attached. It is either good enough or not - but you seem to think it becomes an unknown with no error bound. This is stupidity. Think about this again!!!!!

dont you see

These errors are a snowball rolling down mt everest. and its been going on for centuries.

You use imperfect results to figure somehting, then you take those even farther from perfect to figure another thing, then you use that to figure something else.

is the color green really blue?

or maybe it is yellow?

your philosophy is who cares its close enough.
the fact is they are different, if you call green blue, your are wrong, and color blind.

Remember that the next time you go to your doctor!

last time i went to the doctor i was prescribbed amoxicillin for an infection, i never got it filled but guess what, your God of time must have healed me. i was fine after two days

What definition is that? The one you have imposed on it? Or the one that has been understood by real scientists for centuries?

the investigation of whats observed

LOL - no they do not. You demand perfection from science and then you claim something that is perfect when it fact it can be demonstrated that it is not.

How through the influence or interference of man?

'Time = God' has been refuted in this very thread. Have you learned nothing about science or evolution in these last six pages? Are we all just wasting our time?

this is only one of many threads i have been having this discussion, and to answer your question, no i have learned nothing, i fell science is less trustable then i originally did.

The truth is , There is nothing to be taught. You are not wasting your time you have helped me make my points.

Science is imperfect, inaccurate, and in some cases plain False

How come all you people slamming the science can't do it? How come you are all insurance agents or burger flippers or housewives or pastors who haven't a clue about science?????????????????????? Funny that isn't it - clueless in the subject but somehow experts on finding errors in it. Yeah right!!!!!

In fact i am an Engineering Technician, however not clueless, i do not know it all, i have what one would call common sense, which you can not understand because your head is so swollen with your so called knowledge, that you cant see it

 

[simplyg123]

not nessessarly last forever, but would be without flaws.

For example.

Why is it cell phones and other electronics keep getting smaller?

we learn new things of how these things work, and we improve them. however never perfect, if it was perfect it would need not to be improved

 

[KerrMetric]

dont you see

These errors are a snowball rolling down mt everest. and its been going on for centuries.

You use imperfect results to figure somehting, then you take those even farther from perfect to figure another thing, then you use that to figure something else.

Think about the errors in percentile terms. I cannot believe you are stating this.

How through the influence or interference of man?

No.

this is only one of many threads i have been having this discussion, and to answer your question, no i have learned nothing, i fell science is less trustable then i originally did.

The truth is , There is nothing to be taught. You are not wasting your time you have helped me make my points.

Science is imperfect, inaccurate, and in some cases plain False

How false? How inaccurate. Can you even define accuracy or precision? I doubt it.

In fact i am an Engineering Technician, however not clueless, i do not know it all, i have what one would call common sense, which you can not understand because your head is so swollen with your so called knowledge, that you cant see it

I was already PM'd about your supposed occupation by a poster whom I think was not believing it.

Aha - the common sense card. Coming from someone who doesn't know what a statistic is. I think some of your posts directly fall under the category of not exhibiting common sense.

 

[simplyg123]

Quote:
How through the influence or interference of man?
No.

Please explain how a flower is not perfect

How false? How inaccurate. Can you even define accuracy or precision? I doubt it.

accuracy is comming close to a true value, and if you are using values that are inaccurate due to the snowball effect through the years then. your result will be INACCURATE

Aha - the common sense card. Coming from someone who doesn't know what a statistic is. I think some of your posts directly fall under the category of not exhibiting common sense.

A statistic is derived from a sample. a fraction of a whole

my original thought on a statistic is as in a ratio, like 9 out of 10 smokers.... this is a statistic, and i agree it is not an average, however an average can be calculated through a statistic, which is what i meant