Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[lucaspa]

You realize that lucaspa was joking, right?

Nope. No joke. Poe's Law strikes out on this one. Creationism was the accepted scientific theory from 1000 AD up until 1790. Then there were periods of doubt and modifications until 1831, when it was realized it was completely false. Darwin just helped put the final nails in the coffin.

Remember, when you say that creationism is "pure theology", you are not making any truth claim about it. When I correctly point out that creationism is a falsified scientific theory, I am very definitely making a truth claim.

 

[lucaspa]

Methodological naturalism = scientific method.

Nope. MM (or MN) is the result of how we do experiments, but it isn't the "scientific method" itself.

 

[lucaspa]

.

Thats one reason i dont believe much of what the bible says.

Darwin screwed up on several things in Origin of Species. For instance, he got the explanation for wingless beetles all wrong. Do you not believe much of what is in Origin of Species?

Hespera, Genesis 1 was never intended to be history. The sequence is dictated by the sequence in the Enuma Elish. Genesis 1 is a monograph for monotheism and a refutation of the Babylonian religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not "myopic".

Yes it is myopic.

See what I mean by twisting?

No

It's a limitation.

Try 'privation'.

It demands neutrality towards the existence of deity and whether or not deity superintends nature.

And in so doing, errs from the Truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL! Good point. AV's god is a false idol. That's why he lowers the bar for it.

I'm not the one who made this 'mistake':

Nathan, it's not about God, it's about science. Specifically, it's how we conduct experiments. We have no "control" for God. As the wag put it "you can't keep God out of a test tube and you can't put him into one."

Or was it a faux pas?

 

[rjc34]

Sorry, but creationism is a scientific theory. See below before you answer. A falsified one. But a scientific theory does not lose its status by being falsified. It simply moves from the short column of currently valid theories to the long column of falsified ones.

Now, since creationism is falsified, modern day creationists have trouble trying to present it as valid. That's where your confusion that it is "theology pure and simple" comes from.

"There is another way to be a Creationist. One might offer Creationism as a scientific theory: Life did not evolve over millions of years; rather all forms were created at one time by a particular Creator. Although pure versions of Creationism were no longer in vogue among scientists by the end of the eighteenth century, they had flourished earlier (in the writings of Thomas Bumet, William Whiston, and others). Moreover, variants of Creationism were supported by a number of eminent nineteenth-century scientists-William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, and Louis Agassiz, for example. These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way. However, that fact does not affect the scientific status of those theories. Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobservable particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about the catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation. In 1831, in his presidential address to the Geological Society, Adam Sedgwick publicly announced that his own variant of Creationism had been refuted:" Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp125-126

I think the problem I have with it is that it originates not from observations or evidence, but from a preconceived notion.

I don't consider it a true scientific theory specifically because of this fact. Theories are explanations of natural observations and facts, creationism was an explanation from which people tried to find evidence for.

 

[Hespera]

Darwin screwed up on several things in Origin of Species. For instance, he got the explanation for wingless beetles all wrong. Do you not believe much of what is in Origin of Species?

Hespera, Genesis 1 was never intended to be history. The sequence is dictated by the sequence in the Enuma Elish. Genesis 1 is a monograph for monotheism and a refutation of the Babylonian religion.

Darwin never presented himself as infallible and inspired by god.

if the bible isnt, then whats to believe other than as a somewhat historical magic reality work of fiction.?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. MM (or MN) is the result of how we do experiments, but it isn't the "scientific method" itself.

Then someone might want to let Wikipedia know:

A more recent kind of naturalism is called methodological naturalism:

Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as "methodological naturalism" and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.

SOURCE

 

[Hespera]

I think the problem I have with it is that it originates not from observations or evidence, but from a preconceived notion.

I don't consider it a true scientific theory specifically because of this fact. Theories are explanations of natural observations and facts, creationism was an explanation from which people tried to find evidence for.

As was said in the quote above....

These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way.

i always kind of thought a theory was what you come up with to explain data, and there is not never has ever been any data to support creationism.

 

[lucaspa]

And how do you know this? I think the evidence does not exist for the reason that it does not exist.

Hespera, I'll walk you thru this just like I did for the graduate students 2 weeks ago. I used cell culture as an example. We were trying to find the necessary and sufficient causes for mammalian cells to grow in vitro. We could go into a lot of things, but we settled for 3 parameters/causes that are sufficient to illustrate the problem:
1. Media (the amino acids, sugars, etc.)
2. Temperature
3. pH (about 7.2-7.5)

Now, how do you test that these are necessary for cells to grow in vitro? Well, you do a culture dish with cells where you know the thing is present and compare to a culture dish with cells where you know the thing is absent. For instance, you do a culture dish with cells and media at 37 degrees C and pH 7.4 with media vs a culture dish with cells and water at 37 degrees and pH 7.4. Or, you do a culture dish with cells and media at 37 degrees and pH 7.4 vs a culture dish with cells and media at 37 degrees and pH 1.0 (or pH 8.0 or whatever).

You compare dishes to see if the cells live and grow.

Now, is God necessary for cells to grow? How do I test that? How do I get the evidence that God is necessary or unnecessary? Which culture dish can I point to that I know God is in and which culture dish can I know that God is absent? I can't do the controls.

So, in my list of things necessary and sufficient for cells to grow in vitro, I can't test God. Think of any other scientific process and you run into the same problem. When apples fall from trees, which apple has God in it and which does not so we know whether God is necessary for gravity or not?

You can believe that the material processes work on their own and that they are sufficient. IOW, media, pH, and temp are all that is necessary in our illustration for cells to grow in vitro. In fact, you must believe that to be an atheist (one reason atheism is a faith), but you can't know that by science.

Not because the evidence is not there, but because we can't run the controls.

i wish there were a rule against using the "cant prove a negative" argument.

So do I. Science does so all the time. In fact, that is all science can "prove". Proving a negative is a direct result of deductive logic.

 

[lucaspa]

This is pretty interesting. I think I remember you mentioning this before. Any books or links or anything on this subject that explains this a bit more fully?

The Fire in the Equations by Kitty Ferguson
Diogenes Allen, Christian belief in a postmodern world: the full wealth of
Conviction
Religion and Science by Ian Barbour
Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction edited by Gary R Ferngren

 

[mzungu]

Just out of curiosity, is that a dingo in your avatar?

His name is CHOCO and is a mongrel. He lives on our farm in Africa. I prefer to place him in a unique breed that I call "Shenzi Bat eared Dog of Tanzania" Shenzi means savage or barbaric in swahili. Man you gotta love that dog! He looks so evil

 

[mzungu]

How is something that's already happened "not going to happen"?

Or are you confused (again) as to which side of the rapture you're on?

Hehe! I think AV must have accidentally opened a book on QM

 

[rjc34]

Darwin screwed up on several things in Origin of Species. For instance, he got the explanation for wingless beetles all wrong. Do you not believe much of what is in Origin of Species?

Hespera, Genesis 1 was never intended to be history. The sequence is dictated by the sequence in the Enuma Elish. Genesis 1 is a monograph for monotheism and a refutation of the Babylonian religion.

I don't believe most of what was written in Origin of Species. It's a century and a half old, and while an absolutely astounding example of scientific brilliance, it barely resembles anything in the modern theory of evolution.

 

[rjc34]

And in so doing, errs from the Truth.

Your subjective truth, but not necessarily the objective truth that is based in reality.

 

[lucaspa]

You may have mentioned something somewhere about your opinion on this matter. However that is absurd if one thinks about it, and not supported in any way.

Denial without reason or evidence. It's the fallacy of the Argument from Ridicule. Why is it absurd and not supported? Isn't the present the result of what happened in the past. You yourself are the result of your parents having sex in the past. Creationists say we can tell about the Flood from looking at sediments.

Says you. Jesus doesn't agree,[/quote]

Yes, Jesus does agree. He does not reference Genesis 1 as history, but as theology. Also, scripture says so, since there are 2 contradictory creation stories in Genesis 1-2. They can't both be history. So they are theology.

Then you mean that the present still remains the present physical only state AFTER the miracles is over. No news there! What, you thought every miracle would alter the laws of the whole universe??? Makes no sense to the thinking man.

Unfortunately, what you now call "makes no sense" is what you said. Glad you now agree you were wrong.

No, I was talking also about how miracles are real science experiments!

How can they be unless they leave evidence to the present? Science depends on intersubjective experiences. What you might call "repeatablility". All of us (scientists and non-scientists) have to be able to look at the evidence and see the same thing. You and I can't look at the miracle of the loaves and fishes, can we? And since it left no evidence you can I can see today, that miracle can't be a science experiment. In contrast, the meteor that hit earth and formed Meteor Crator did leave evidence you and I can study: Meteor Crator.

So many, and each one demonstrating different reactions to the physical only state world, when applied locally.

But, as you said above, in some miracles the long-term physical state is not altered.

In the future, when nature itself accommodates the spiritual,

Why don't you think nature does not accomodate the spiritual now? Sounds like you are not a Christian and don't believe God sustains the universe.

Circular! If you first assume a different state past, then the same thing applies.

The original hypothesis that geology in the past was very different from now. In fact, the working hypothesis was that a world-wide flood caused all of geology. So your "circular" doesn't apply. What happened was that geological features were discovered that could not possibly be caused by a world-wide flood, certainly not one that lasted just a year.

Let's see, you say that assuming a different state past is circular logic? ("same thing applies") Wow. You just blew away your own argument. Thanks. But I am surprised.

If you honestly believed that wrong claim, be educated. Cheers

"All forms of isochron dating assume that the source of the rock or rocks contained unknown amounts of both radiogenic and non-radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element, along with some amount of the parent nuclide..."

Isochron dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It doesn't get any more dyed in the woll same state belief based that that!!!

First, Wiki is not a reliable source. Second, isochron dating doesn't assume that the initial rock contained any daughter nuclide. It could have been zeor. Third, we know that the source contained radiogenic isotope because it is still there. So that is a conclusion, not an assumption.

What if there was none? Got proof there was any? If it started with our state, that would neuter your claims somethin fierce.

If it started with our state, then there wouldn't be as much daughter isotopes as we find. For instance, since Argon is a noble gas, if there was no K40 in the original rock, there would be no Argon, because the rock can't form with argon.

Now, if you say that God put the argon into the rock, then we get into the theological problem that God is lying to us.

Tomato...tomatoe

You have brussels sprouts instead of tomato. For starters, uniformitarianism is in geology, not the philosphy of science.

 

[Hespera]

I don't believe most of what was written in Origin of Species. It's a century and a half old, and while an absolutely astounding example of scientific brilliance, it barely resembles anything in the modern theory of evolution.

I never read it. Nineteenth century writing isnt a style I enjoy.

 

[Hespera]

Hespera, I'll walk you thru this just like I did for the graduate students 2 weeks ago. I used cell culture as an example. We were trying to find the necessary and sufficient causes for mammalian cells to grow in vitro. We could go into a lot of things, but we settled for 3 parameters/causes that are sufficient to illustrate the problem:
1. Media (the amino acids, sugars, etc.)
2. Temperature
3. pH (about 7.2-7.5)

Now, how do you test that these are necessary for cells to grow in vitro? Well, you do a culture dish with cells where you know the thing is present and compare to a culture dish with cells where you know the thing is absent. For instance, you do a culture dish with cells and media at 37 degrees C and pH 7.4 with media vs a culture dish with cells and water at 37 degrees and pH 7.4. Or, you do a culture dish with cells and media at 37 degrees and pH 7.4 vs a culture dish with cells and media at 37 degrees and pH 1.0 (or pH 8.0 or whatever).

You compare dishes to see if the cells live and grow.

Now, is God necessary for cells to grow? How do I test that? How do I get the evidence that God is necessary or unnecessary? Which culture dish can I point to that I know God is in and which culture dish can I know that God is absent? I can't do the controls.

So, in my list of things necessary and sufficient for cells to grow in vitro, I can't test God. Think of any other scientific process and you run into the same problem. When apples fall from trees, which apple has God in it and which does not so we know whether God is necessary for gravity or not?

You can believe that the material processes work on their own and that they are sufficient. IOW, media, pH, and temp are all that is necessary in our illustration for cells to grow in vitro. In fact, you must believe that to be an atheist (one reason atheism is a faith), but you can't know that by science.

Not because the evidence is not there, but because we can't run the controls.



So do I. Science does so all the time. In fact, that is all science can "prove". Proving a negative is a direct result of deductive logic.

i appreciate your taking the time for the walk-thru tho it was totally unnecessary. i do know that stuff.

The thing you say about god applies equally to atlantis and nessie.

In fact, that is all science can "prove"

.

Science is good at falsifying a bad theory, but that is not remotely the same thing as proving a negative as in 'prove there no god" / no alien base in the bermuda triangle. THAT is the kind of 'prove a negataive" i was talking about and the one that applies to the 'god" hypothesis. Show evidence, data for the hypothesis, and I will get interested. god of triangle, either one.

(one reason atheism is a faith)

one reason we refer to the equivocation fallacy so often.

 

[lucaspa]

That's not going to happen this side of the Rapture.

Been done, AV. Creationism is wrong. Are you confusing creation with creationism?

 

[lucaspa]

False. You do not know any such thing.

Sure do. Unless you want to claim that God is deceiving us in His Creation. Do you want to make that claim?