Call for Submissions

[tas8831]

setst777 said: ↑
Everything produces after its own kind. God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment.



??? I see no examples of a kind, or some from that kind, turning into a different kind of creature.

Of course you didn't - "Kind" is a made up thing used by ancient peoples with no concept of scientific taxonomy or "genetic information."

What that link provided was access to genomes.

That was for you to find and present your evidence that "God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."

If you are going to make genetics claims, then be prepared to provide genetics EVIDENCE.

So - go HERE, and find some examples. Should be pretty easy for you. You made the claim, you need to back it up with evidence.

setst777 said: ↑
For instance, just like all other creatures of a species, we have humans with different skin colors and body characteristics. This was so, even in Genesis. No to humans were ever identical.



Adam was a male and Eve was a female.

Fallacy of begging the question.

We observe differences among people described in the Bible.

• Esau had red skin and hair, while Jacob was smooth.

'Smooth'?
Ok - "God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."

What "situation" or "environment" gave Esau red skin and made Jacob smooth? Did they not live within a few days/weeks walk of each other?

Some men were huge, called giants, while others were small. David was slender of build.

Evidence for giants?

• We have examples of black people in the Bible.

Really? Chapter and verse, please.

None of that matters, however, unless you can provide the evidence supporting your "genetics" claim.

 

[setst777]

Of course you didn't - "Kind" is a made up thing used by ancient peoples with no concept of scientific taxonomy or "genetic information."

What that link provided was access to genomes.

That was for you to find and present your evidence that "God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."

If you are going to make genetics claims, then be prepared to provide genetics EVIDENCE.

So - go HERE, and find some examples. Should be pretty easy for you. You made the claim, you need to back it up with evidence.



Fallacy of begging the question.

'Smooth'?
Ok - "God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."

What "situation" or "environment" gave Esau red skin and made Jacob smooth? Did they not live within a few days/weeks walk of each other?

Evidence for giants?

Really? Chapter and verse, please.

None of that matters, however, unless you can provide the evidence supporting your "genetics" claim.

Whether you hold to the theory of evolution or creation, it's all based on faith. If one believes hard enough on the theory he holds to, then there is no amount of evidence that will convince him otherwise.

So, I will pass on this hopeless challenge as I am working on far more important things at this time.

Thank you for the offer.

Blessings

 

[J_B_]

There are an infinite number of ways of skinning this cat, and for the vast majority, we can only speculate how they could be done... Ideas like the Kardashev scale attempt to order the different capabilities of hypothetical civilizations in terms of the energy at their disposal, but it's speculative stuff.

So the question is too speculative for now. Fair enough.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So the question is too speculative for now. Fair enough.

It is unless the context and criteria are more specific. If you want to know how to create a replica of a beach pebble using today's technology and access to stone, it's not difficult to come up with practical solutions. If you want to do it in an inflatable raft in the Atlantic without technology or stone, I doubt it's possible.

So if your question is completely generic, i.e. you have no particular objects in mind for your hypothetical creator to create and no particular contexts or criteria for their creation, I think it's a road to nowhere.

 

[driewerf]

Gravity is a fact because it can be observed today.


Evolution has not ever been observed anywhere, which is why evolution is not a scientific fact; and so, evolution is a theory.

A theory is never a fact.


Gravity is a fact, although not fully understood. Theories are proposed as to how gravity operates, but gravity itself is a scientific fact.

Setst777, there is a misunderstanding. Let me explain.

You confuse the phenomenon with the explanation. You confuse the territory with the map.

In the real world things happen. It rains, continents move, planets orbit the Sun, populations adapt and evolve.

These things happen in the real world.

• Therefor we can speak of rain as a fact.
• Therefor we can speak of continental drift as a fact.
• Therefor we can speak of gravity as a fact.
• Therefor we can speak of evolution as a fact. (Though I prefer to describe evolution as a process, but that is beside the point.)

The theory of the hydrological cycle (evaporation, cooling down, condensation) explains and describes the fact of rain. It has always rained and it will always rain. It rained before we understood how rain forms. And if our understanding of the hydrological cycle were wrong, it would still rain, independent of our understanding of it. Since both exist, we can speak of rain as a fact that is explained by the theory of the hydrological cycle.


The continents move. We have a theory of plate tectonics that explains and describes these movements, but the continents did move before we understood these and independent of our understanding. Continental drift causes earthquakes, these were observed long before a theory (continental drift) explained this. So we can speak of moving continents as a fact and continental drift as a theory.


Same deal with gravity that causes planets to orbit the Sun. The movement of the planets is a fact. The theory of gravity describes and explains this. By the way, gravity is much more complex than just “when we drop things they fall.” For a full understanding you need the General Theory (that word again) of Relativity.


I hope you see the pattern by now. The fact (the process) of evolution is what happens in the natural world. The theory of evolution is our description and explanation of it. Which can be flawed. But is, at the moment of writing supported by a huge amount of evidence and one of the big unifying theories in biology.


Facts and theories are not mutually exclusive. Facts are what happens in nature, theories are our attempts to explain the facts.


If anything is unclear, please don’t hesitate to ask for clarification. I, and I am convinced a lot of other people, will be very glad to answer any question genuinly asked in good faith.


Kind regards,

driewerf

 

[driewerf]

If i'm understanding your program, ultimately you want this to be a conclusion that can be reached based on some evidence. I'm not sure starting with it as an assumption is that valuable.

So it may be more fruitful to ask, "What conditions would allow us to conclude a thing was created by an intelligent being, given that there is no physical evidence?"

No physical evidence? Unbelievable.

[emphasize is mine]
There is indeed no evidence of any design. Do you know of any physical evidence of design?
Please present it.

 

[setst777]

Setst777, there is a misunderstanding. Let me explain.

You confuse the phenomenon with the explanation. You confuse the territory with the map.

In the real world things happen. It rains, continents move, planets orbit the Sun, populations adapt and evolve.

These things happen in the real world.

• Therefor we can speak of rain as a fact.
• Therefor we can speak of continental drift as a fact.
• Therefor we can speak of gravity as a fact.
• Therefor we can speak of evolution as a fact. (Though I prefer to describe evolution as a process, but that is beside the point.)

The theory of the hydrological cycle (evaporation, cooling down, condensation) explains and describes the fact of rain. It has always rained and it will always rain. It rained before we understood how rain forms. And if our understanding of the hydrological cycle were wrong, it would still rain, independent of our understanding of it. Since both exist, we can speak of rain as a fact that is explained by the theory of the hydrological cycle.

The continents move. We have a theory of plate tectonics that explains and describes these movements, but the continents did move before we understood these and independent of our understanding. Continental drift causes earthquakes, these were observed long before a theory (continental drift) explained this. So we can speak of moving continents as a fact and continental drift as a theory.

Same deal with gravity that causes planets to orbit the Sun. The movement of the planets is a fact. The theory of gravity describes and explains this. By the way, gravity is much more complex than just “when we drop things they fall.” For a full understanding you need the General Theory (that word again) of Relativity.

I hope you see the pattern by now. The fact (the process) of evolution is what happens in the natural world. The theory of evolution is our description and explanation of it. Which can be flawed. But is, at the moment of writing supported by a huge amount of evidence and one of the big unifying theories in biology.

Facts and theories are not mutually exclusive. Facts are what happens in nature, theories are our attempts to explain the facts.

If anything is unclear, please don’t hesitate to ask for clarification. I, and I am convinced a lot of other people, will be very glad to answer any question genuinly asked in good faith.

Kind regards,

driewerf

How one uses the scientific data is determined by what theory one deduces and one holds to and desires to prove.

There exists a huge amount of scientific data that supports the creation account. And others will say that a huge amount of scientific data supports their own theory, whatever that may be. All are correct in saying this.

Theories continue to evolve, and they change back and forth; yet, some will hold to their theory as fact to their graves.

It would be correct to say that there exists a huge amount of scientific data for many theories of how all things came into existence and have their being in our present system. And this depends on which theory one desires to interpret the scientific data.

The scientific data, what we can see and observe within our present recorded history, does not tell us whether all things were constant and happened just as they do today as they did in the distant past.

Consider past cataclysmic events in the form of world wide floods, huge volcanic activity, and earth changes that occurred after such cataclysms, that could account for an extreme acceleration of what earth formations we now observe taking place in a very slow and deliberate way in our present system, even before much of the mineral and debris formed into solid rock.

Consider the huge complexity of life, from the protein molecule to genetics of all living things that produces life. Many believe that the kinds of life we see today all happened by natural processes. Others believe that there was a beginning creation by which all the kinds of life that we see today originally were patterned from.

Both theories could be correct based on the scientific data we do have regarding the amazing complexity of life and their highly organized genetic structures.

However, for me, the more we learn about the enormous complexity and organization of genetics by which all the kinds of life are patterned, the more it amazes me how anyone could think these kinds of things originally evolving from natural processes from the beginning. The scientific data regarding the complexity of life leads me to believe in creation.

You may believe natural processes accounts for the kinds of life we now observe. And you use scientific data to "prove" your theory.

Therefore, one must deduce and reason what could have happened based on what they observe happening with the recorded data we do have within our present system of things. When one does this, he reasons within himself a theory. And no one who holds to a theory is unbiased in how the data is interpreted.

Blessings

 

[essentialsaltes]

How one uses the scientific data is determined by what theory one deduces and one holds to and desires to prove.

NNnnnnnoo. Or at least, that would be a pretty poor scientist who would get curbstomped by better scientists.

There exists a huge amount of scientific data that supports the creation account.

When asked to provide it... you have once again just alluded to its existence. This is.... less than convincing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How one uses the scientific data is determined by what theory one deduces and one holds to and desires to prove.

That's not how science works.

There exists a huge amount of scientific data that supports the creation account. And others will say that a huge amount of scientific data supports their own theory, whatever that may be. All are correct in saying this.

No, there really isn't. The creation account is a single page (or so) in a 2500-year-old book. That's all there is to it.

Theories continue to evolve, and they change back and forth; yet, some will hold to their theory as fact to their graves.

It would be correct to say that there exists a huge amount of scientific data for many theories of how all things came into existence and have their being in our present system. And this depends on which theory one desires to interpret the scientific data.

Some of this is true, but you seem to be getting the "motivations" issue wrong when thinking about the practice of science.

The scientific data, what we can see and observe within our present recorded history, does not tell us whether all things were constant and happened just as they do today as they did in the distant past.

There are plenty of data pointing to the past being like the present. This includes observations of far distant galaxies (and thus viewed from far back in the past) that show the physical constants haven't changed in at least several billion years.

Consider past cataclysmic events in the form of world wide floods, huge volcanic activity, and earth changes that occurred after such cataclysms, that could account for an extreme acceleration of what earth formations we now observe taking place in a very slow and deliberate way in our present system, even before much of the mineral and debris formed into solid rock.

There is no geological record of world-wide floods. Period.

As for huge volcanic activity, the largest volcanic events are the "flood basalts" which are massive eruptions covering large areas that last for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Two examples are the one that covered much of central India (the Deccan Traps) and the Columbia River Flood Basalts covering large portions of modern Washington and Oregon. Other similar events have occurred elsewhere, but none of them cover even more than a percent or two of the Earth's surface.

Consider the huge complexity of life, from the protein molecule to genetics of all living things that produces life. Many believe that the kinds of life we see today all happened by natural processes. Others believe that there was a beginning creation by which all the kinds of life that we see today originally were patterned from.

Both theories could be correct based on the scientific data we do have regarding the amazing complexity of life and their highly organized genetic structures.

Creation is not a scientific theory and support for it is not based on "data".

However, for me, the more we learn about the enormous complexity and organization of genetics by which all the kinds of life are patterned, the more it amazes me how anyone could think these kinds of things originally evolving from natural processes from the beginning. The scientific data regarding the complexity of life leads me to believe in creation.

You may believe natural processes accounts for the kinds of life we now observe. And you use scientific data to "prove" your theory.

Look into "common descent", it will explain a lot.

Therefore, one must deduce and reason what could have happened based on what they observe happening with the recorded data we do have within our present system of things. When one does this, he reasons within himself a theory. And no one who holds to a theory is unbiased in how the data is interpreted.

Blessings

Again you seem to be close to claiming that modern science is full of people that interpret data in the way they want to get the results they want. This is far from reality.

Cheers.

 

[setst777]

Some of this is true, but you seem to be getting the "motivations" issue wrong when thinking about the practice of science.

Some people are very naive. The beliefs you hold to shape how you define the scientific data. Besides this, we have many examples of evolutionists, and also creationists, who have not only hidden data, but also falsified data to bolster their theory, which they believe to be true, but can't find the evidence. Besides this, one will draw conclusions from data that the data does not actually support. So you cannot say that evolutionists are pure angels who have absolutely no bias.

There are plenty of data pointing to the past being like the present. This includes observations of far distant galaxies (and thus viewed from far back in the past) that show the physical constants haven't changed in at least several billion years.

Plenty of scientific evidence shows that the past is not like the present. Observations of distant galaxies are assuming an evolutionary mindset. By this mindset, the data is interpreted.

For instance, if all things were created, then what we see happening now through observations does not mean that those things that are happening were constant. At a point in time they were created, and what we see in observation is the aftermath of what was first created.

There is no geological record of world-wide floods. Period.

The fossil record over the face of the earth embedded in what is now mostly sedimentary rock, including the thousands of miles of oil reserves and coal beds with fossil embedded throughout, is clear evidence for a worldwide catastrophic flood.

As for huge volcanic activity, the largest volcanic events are the "flood basalts" which are massive eruptions covering large areas that last for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Two examples are the one that covered much of central India (the Deccan Traps) and the Columbia River Flood Basalts covering large portions of modern Washington and Oregon. Other similar events have occurred elsewhere, but none of them cover even more than a percent or two of the Earth's surface.

The thousands of millions of yeas scenario is completely founded by what mindset you are interpreting the data.

Creation is not a scientific theory and support for it is not based on "data".

This shows your bias from the start.

Look into "common descent", it will explain a lot.

I have, and have had many debated on the subject. How one interprets the data, and ones knowledge of the data, is determined by the theory one believes in.

Again you seem to be close to claiming that modern science is full of people that interpret data in the way they want to get the results they want. This is far from reality.
Cheers.

When it comes to those who put their faith in a particular theory, that is exactly what is happening.

 

[setst777]

NNnnnnnoo. Or at least, that would be a pretty poor scientist who would get curbstomped by better scientists.

Don't say there a "better" scientists. Rather, say that some scientists study the data and are evolutionists. Other scientists study the data and they are creationists. Do not accuse one of being a bad scientist because they do not hold to your theory.

When asked to provide it... you have once again just alluded to its existence. This is.... less than convincing.

I am not convinced that the evidence shows that evolution is the first cause of all things. That data is lacking for this.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Don't say there a "better" scientists. Rather, say that some scientists study the data and are evolutionists. Other scientists study the data and they are creationists. Do not accuse one of being a bad scientist because they do not hold to your theory.

No, what you said was "How one uses the scientific data is determined by what theory one deduces and one holds to and desires to prove."

I know there are 'scientists' at Answers in Genesis or other creationist organizations who have to sign statements of faith holding them to a creationist view. These people have more than just a desire to prove creation -- their jobs depend on having a predetermined outcome, regardless of the evidence. These are bad scientists.

 

[tas8831]

Whether you hold to the theory of evolution or creation, it's all based on faith.

FALSE.
The ToE has EVIDENCE in its favor.

Creation does not.

Stop projecting.

If one believes hard enough on the theory he holds to, then there is no amount of evidence that will convince him otherwise.

But you have presented ZERO evidence. I can present all kinds of evidence.

So, I will pass on this hopeless challenge as I am working on far more important things at this time.

Thank you for the offer.

Blessings

Bluff called, concession accepted.

Your unsupported assertions about God and genetics might impress the folks in your church. but in places like this, they just come across as empty assertions premised on wishful thinking.

Which this one clearly was.

 

[tas8831]

How one uses the scientific data is determined by what theory one deduces and one holds to and desires to prove.

More projection.

There exists a huge amount of scientific data that supports the creation account. And others will say that a huge amount of scientific data supports their own theory, whatever that may be. All are correct in saying this.

False.

You say there is all this evidence, yet when asked, you have nothing. Ask someone with relevant knowledge of evolution, and we can give you all kinds of evidence.

You claimed that "God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."
Yet obviously there is ZERO evidence for this, as when I provided you with a tool to show, you at first clearly did not even know what it was. Which means that you really do KNOW that the evidence for your assertion does not exist -= you think it does because it fits your narrative.

Theories continue to evolve, and they change back and forth; yet, some will hold to their theory as fact to their graves.

And others, it seems, will claim evidence for theirs which does not exist.

It would be correct to say that there exists a huge amount of scientific data for many theories of how all things came into existence and have their being in our present system. And this depends on which theory one desires to interpret the scientific data.

Interpretations of data have to be logical, rational, etc.

The scientific data, what we can see and observe within our present recorded history, does not tell us whether all things were constant and happened just as they do today as they did in the distant past.

Here we go...

Consider past cataclysmic events in the form of world wide floods,

No such thing.

huge volcanic activity, and earth changes that occurred after such cataclysms, that could account for an extreme acceleration of what earth formations we now observe taking place in a very slow and deliberate way in our present system, even before much of the mineral and debris formed into solid rock.

Non sequitur.

Consider the huge complexity of life, from the protein molecule to genetics of all living things that produces life. Many believe that the kinds of life we see today all happened by natural processes. Others believe that there was a beginning creation by which all the kinds of life that we see today originally were patterned from.

And one side of that has evidence, the other has wishful thinking and empty assertions.

Both theories could be correct based on the scientific data we do have regarding the amazing complexity of life and their highly organized genetic structures.

Not really. Only one actually fits the data. The other requires magical thinking and just-so stories.

However, for me, the more we learn about the enormous complexity and organization of genetics by which all the kinds of life are patterned, the more it amazes me how anyone could think these kinds of things originally evolving from natural processes from the beginning. The scientific data regarding the complexity of life leads me to believe in creation.

Tell me all about your knowledge of genetics. From what transpired just a few posts up, I'm guessing you are just awed by what you do not understand. Prove me wrong.

 

[tas8831]

Some people are very naive.

You could have stopped here.

The beliefs you hold to shape how you define the scientific data.

No - it can shape how you interpret it.

Besides this, we have many examples of evolutionists, and also creationists, who have not only hidden data, but also falsified data to bolster their theory, which they believe to be true, but can't find the evidence.

Yes, I see creationists write that a lot, and at best they use the pig tooth, or Piltdown, or Haeckel.
Pity that none of those were even all that relevant, and were shown to be incorrect by other evolutionists, not by creationists.

Besides this, one will draw conclusions from data that the data does not actually support. So you cannot say that evolutionists are pure angels who have absolutely no bias.

You seem to engage primarily in projection, as best I can tell. Evolutionists are not "pure angels", but then, they do not claim to be. On the contrary, creationists imply that are close to such, yet we catch them doing all manner of deceptive, dishonest things. Even the professional ones.
Bias surely colors one's interpretations, but even biased interpretations have to be logical and rational and parsimonious in order to be considered valid.

Plenty of scientific evidence shows that the past is not like the present. Observations of distant galaxies are assuming an evolutionary mindset. By this mindset, the data is interpreted.

Then I eagerly await your better interpretation of things like the red shift that do not rely on God creating it as-is 10,000 years ago.

For instance, if all things were created, then what we see happening now through observations does not mean that those things that are happening were constant. At a point in time they were created, and what we see in observation is the aftermath of what was first created.

Golly, makes so much sense. If you ignore the data.

The fossil record over the face of the earth embedded in what is now mostly sedimentary rock, including the thousands of miles of oil reserves and coal beds with fossil embedded throughout, is clear evidence for a worldwide catastrophic flood.

If it were world-wide, would not such things not only be world-wide themselves, but ALL in contemporaneous strata?
And sorry, Morris' hydrodynamic sorting doesn't help.

The thousands of millions of yeas scenario is completely founded by what mindset you are interpreting the data.

"Mindset."

I have, and have had many debated on the subject.

And in these debates, how often did you rely on bare assertions and bow-out when provided with a tool to provide evidence that actually supports one of your claims?

 

[tas8831]

Ooh - found another one for you, @setst777

Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

That one is a twofer - not only did I catch a professional YEC lying (or showing incompetence), but the very first YEC reply was totally off-topic.

added in edit:
ooo - its actually a 3fer. On p.3, I link to yet another professional YEC caught lying.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I know there are 'scientists' at Answers in Genesis or other creationist organizations who have to sign statements of faith holding them to a creationist view. These people have more than just a desire to prove creation -- their jobs depend on having a predetermined outcome, regardless of the evidence. These are bad scientists.

I believe the correct term is "liars with scientific training".

 

[Hans Blaster]

Some people are very naive. The beliefs you hold to shape how you define the scientific data. Besides this, we have many examples of evolutionists, and also creationists, who have not only hidden data, but also falsified data to bolster their theory, which they believe to be true, but can't find the evidence. Besides this, one will draw conclusions from data that the data does not actually support. So you cannot say that evolutionists are pure angels who have absolutely no bias.

Yes people are naive and others are poorly informed. This is an od creationist trope about scientists bending data to fit preconceived notions. As others have responded more thoughtfully I will not, but to say that clearly you have no experience of how science actually works or you would not honestly say these things about "evolutionists".

Creationism isn't a science or a product of science it is a religious belief and in its more "sophisticated" forms it is a reaction *to* science. It is not based on scientific evidence at all.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Plenty of scientific evidence shows that the past is not like the present. Observations of distant galaxies are assuming an evolutionary mindset. By this mindset, the data is interpreted.

First you say there is evidence of the past not being like the present, and then you say the "observations" assume a evolutionary mindset. All in the same paragraph. You seem confused.

When you say there is evidence that things were different in the past do you mean that individual objects were different in the past, because the astronomers would have no problem with that statement (nor would I, who at one point in the past was 3 feet tall.)

If you mean the laws or constants of Nature have changed, they you are wrong as not only is there no evidence of that, but there is good evidence that they *haven't* changed.

For instance, if all things were created, then what we see happening now through observations does not mean that those things that are happening were constant. At a point in time they were created, and what we see in observation is the aftermath of what was first created.

There is evidence of the "aftermath" of the "creation" of the Universe. It is called the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation and it's existence was *predicted* by Big Bang theory. The formation of this radiation is completely consistent with the laws of Nature being fixed from that time forward.

 

[driewerf]

Setst777,
You replied to a quite long post of mine in which I explained the difference between a fact and a theory while in your reply don’t mention anything of these or follow up on what was said. I consider this regrettable.

Do you understand the difference between facts and theories? Do you understand why both are not mutually exclusive and do you understand why your previous comments:
“Evolution has not ever been observed anywhere, which is why evolution is not a scientific fact; and so, evolution is a theory.”

Was wrong? For that was the main content of my post to which you replied to.

How one uses the scientific data is determined by what theory one deduces and one holds to and desires to prove.

Wrong. Scientific theories are deduced based on data, not the other way round. You seem to think (or that’s the way you phrased it) that scientists just sit in their armchairs dreaming up some theories and then shoehorn some cherry picked data. That’s not the case.

New theories are proposed or old ones adapted because of new incoming data that doesn’t fit or doesn’t support existing theories any more. Not the other way round.

There exists a huge amount of scientific data that supports the creation account.

Please provide said evidence.
In this post you seem to suggest that there is evidence for Design.

Call for Submissions

So that is twice in this thread that you claim to have evidence for your position.
It’s time to present that evidence.

And others will say that a huge amount of scientific data supports their own theory, whatever that may be. All are correct in saying this.

Though some data can indeed fit different theories, it is then inconclusive to distinguish between different theories. What scientists then do is looking for data that doesn’t fit one of the competing theories and see which one is confirmed. Does this sound confusing? Let me explain with a real historical very important example.

The Theory of Relativity describes the space-time as malleable by heavy masses. Hence, a ray of light passing near a big massive object would be slightly bended. In 1914 a total solar eclipse would occur. The stars behind the Sun, that would be invisible under normal circumstances. But the eclipse would obscure the Sun. To see the stars telescopes would need to be pointed at a slightly different direction if Einstein was right and Newton were wrong. So the direction in which to point a telescope was a data point that would differentiate Einstein’s theory from Newton’s theory. It turns out that Einstein was right, and the theory or relativity get a massive empirical confirmation.

How a Total Solar Eclipse Helped Prove Einstein Right About Relativity


@Hans Blaster:

Hans, from previous posts I have understood that you are more a physics guy than I am. Please feel free to improve, correct or to add more information on the part above if necessary.

Theories continue to evolve, and they change back and forth;

Yes, and that is one of the strengths of science. To be able to say, “we were wrong” and to correct itself is unique in society. I haven’t seen many members of the clergy doing that. But think about it. It requires a lot of chutzpah to say so.

yet, some will hold to their theory as fact to their graves.

Less than you would like to think.

That happens indeed. Fred Hoyle is an example of such behaviour.

The opposite is more often true. True scientists will follow the evidence where the evidence leads them. And the scientific community will certainly will. Leaving behind those who can’t adapt.

It would be correct to say that there exists a huge amount of scientific data for many theories of how all things came into existence and have their being in our present system. And this depends on which theory one desires to interpret the scientific data.

Here you show that you don’t know how science works (It has been alluded by other forum members too.) A good scientist doesn’t want an outcome before investigation. A good scientist goes where the evidence leads him or her to.

There are quite some historical notorious examples to give that shows that the scientific community is capable and has adopted new ideas and theories when the old one didn’t fit.
· For 2000 years the Ptolemaic model of the solar system was dominant. Yet over the centuries the discrepancies between model and observation accumulated until it wasn’t defendable anymore. Hence cam Nicolaus Copernicus who introduced a heliocentric solar system, with planets orbiting in perfect circles around the Sun. So we see that scientists were not shy of correcting their view, instead of “hold their theories as fact to their graves”. But you know who rejected the Copernican system? The clergy.

· The circular orbits were not compatible with the improved data, and Johannes Keppler corrected Copernicus by postulating elliptical orbits (though very close to the perfect circle). This is the solar system as most of us know. So again we see that scientists were not shy of correcting their view, instead of “hold their theories as fact to their graves”.

· Isaac Newton provided a theoretical foundation for the kepplerian system, that stood firm until the beginning of the 20th century.

· As highly an authority Isaac newton was, his physics were shown wrong and replaced by Quantum Mechanics at the one hand and General Relativity at the other hand. So again we see that scientists were not shy of correcting their view, instead of “hold their theories as fact to their graves”.

· We can apply the same kind of story to Wegener and the plate tectonics. He was first ridiculed, but when the data proving the previous unification of the continents was so compelling. Geologists had no other choice but to accept that he was right and did wo. So again we see that scientists were not shy of correcting their view, instead of “hold their theories as fact to their graves”.

The scientific data, what we can see and observe within our present recorded history, does not tell us whether all things were constant and happened just as they do today as they did in the distant past.


Consider past cataclysmic events in the form of worldwide floods, huge volcanic activity, and earth changes that occurred after such cataclysms, that could account for an extreme acceleration of what earth formations we now observe taking place in a very slow and deliberate way in our present system, even before much of the mineral and debris formed into solid rock.


Consider the huge complexity of life, from the protein molecule to genetics of all living things that produces life. Many believe that the kinds of life we see today all happened by natural processes. Others believe that there was a beginning creation by which all the kinds of life that we see today originally were patterned from.


Both theories could be correct based on the scientific data we do have regarding the amazing complexity of life and their highly organized genetic structures.


However, for me, the more we learn about the enormous complexity and organization of genetics by which all the kinds of life are patterned, the more it amazes me how anyone could think these kinds of things originally evolving from natural processes from the beginning. The scientific data regarding the complexity of life leads me to believe in creation.


You may believe natural processes accounts for the kinds of life we now observe. And you use scientific data to "prove" your theory.


Therefore, one must deduce and reason what could have happened based on what they observe happening with the recorded data we do have within our present system of things. When one does this, he reasons within himself a theory. And no one who holds to a theory is unbiased in how the data is interpreted.

Blessings

Now this last part is an entire different subject, and will dedicate a separate post to it.

Kind regards,
Driewerf.