Creation/Evolution Fundamental Assumptions

[Resha Caner]

For the sake of argument, let's accept your assumption that "God knew which animals were suited to which environments, and created them to live there" for now.

How do you explain the fact that animals who live in identical environments can have very different morphologies and anatomies? For example, fish have gills while whales/dolphins have lungs, but both live in the ocean at similar depths. If God knew how to best design life for each environment, why do we see such differences?

Evolution can easily answer that. In fact, evolution theory was designed to be able to answer that, and everything else we can observe. Can creationism?

You're headed down a dead end. What is evolution's explanation for fish & whales living in the same environment? Whatever answer you give, why would you expect that God didn't know that?

Understand that I'm not claiming that to be a scientific explanation. I'm just saying your explanation is not convincing. And, once again, I'm asking why that is. You can give the flip answer and brush it off, or you can let your curiosity lead you to dig into it. IMO it comes down to assumptions, and further, IMO assumptions stem from experience.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't know what you're looking for then. To me, these are large scale differences. I don't know what you mean by limited, but life works very similarly.

As I said to sabercroft, that is a fair question, and one that's difficult to answer. But I did my best in post #75. It seems I wasn't clear to sabercroft, though, so take a look at my upcoming reply to him. And my comment on "limited" change came in post #78.

You said that there was no connection made between phylogenetic trees and genetic data. That is incorrect and that is not what that passage says.

Yeah, OK. I was unfamiliar with some of this work so my statement was inaccurate. I'll concede that. Still, a hypothesis is not much to hang one's hat on.

I'd say take a read through this website, when you have a chance:

OK. I'll try to get to it.

I also think that there's a tendency to refer to creationism as some sort of monolithic belief set, when really there's as much difference between the different forms of creationism as there is between creationism and evolution.

Agreed. And as I said early on, "evolution" is not monolithic either.

Forgive me, but I don't think you understand my point. The relationships between these wings are important because they are divorced from their function. Why would bat wings look like primate hands?

See my answer in post #81.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'd rather think Einstein expanded on them. Nothing was thrown out of the window, so to speak.

I disagree. And I think Kuhn (the giant of the philosophy of science) would vehemently disagree with you. I don't know what Einstein's intent was when he started, but by the end the result was to pitch large swaths of classical physics.

 

[chris4243]

Do a search on "species stabilization" ... I think that's the term. It's an idea that had some support around the time of Darwin, but politics took history a different direction.

If you can't think of any limits to what mutation can do, you can just say so instead of pretending to know. I'd even think more highly of you for it.

On page 2 of my copy he speaks of how they are in a constant "energy crisis." On page 24 he talks about how life supposedly evolves to promote survival and, "It is not, therefore, obvious why workers should allow themselves to be manipulated into helping their mother ..." I'm not going to look up all the comments he makes, but I recall things about how they are poor fliers, they build poor nests, they are poor caretakers of their young, and poor navigators who constantly get lost and die, seem to forget where the good flowers are, and don't seem to communicate well to the nest where flowers are.

He does find some things about bumblebees that are good adaptations, but the balance of good and bad wasn't convincing.

Ah, the common creationist tactic of lying and then saying a person with a PhD agrees with them. He doesn't actually say that "he is confused by the bumblebee because, according to evolutionary principles, it should not exist.", does he?

 

[chris4243]

You're headed down a dead end. What is evolution's explanation for fish & whales living in the same environment? Whatever answer you give, why would you expect that God didn't know that?

Of course God knows that fish and whales have different evolutionary histories. (The whale's evolutionary history involves living in seasonally dry areas, walking on land, then eventually returning to the water, whereas the fish's evolutionary history was staying in the water throughout).

 

[Insane_Duck]

I disagree. And I think Kuhn (the giant of the philosophy of science) would vehemently disagree with you. I don't know what Einstein's intent was when he started, but by the end the result was to pitch large swaths of classical physics.

There were problems with classical physics. (i.e. What happens when you catch up to light at light speed? What's wrong with Mercury's orbit?) Einstein (as a patent clerk I believe) found a way to fix these problems with ideas (general and special relativity) that explained orbits more precisely. At the time there were a few emerging problems where Newtonian physics didn't line up with observation, and Einstein's theories explained the same things Newton did, plus more. (and with greater accuracy) In the process his theories also made other predictions (time dilation) that have been experimentally confirmed.

If evolution is replaced, it will more likely be a tune up of the current theory (like genetic drift in modern evolutionary theory vs. Darwinism) as opposed to an overhaul. Either way it will be vastly incompatible with creationism.

 

[sabercroft]

I disagree. And I think Kuhn (the giant of the philosophy of science) would vehemently disagree with you. I don't know what Einstein's intent was when he started, but by the end the result was to pitch large swaths of classical physics.

Um, I'm sure he did. That's why we continue to use classical Newtonian physics to describe an overwhelmingly large number of every day phenomena, right?

You're headed down a dead end. What is evolution's explanation for fish & whales living in the same environment? Whatever answer you give, why would you expect that God didn't know that?

Not really. God knowing why whales have lungs is an entirely different matter from your assumption of God knowing how to best design organisms to fit their environment. I'll get to evolution's explanation of why whales have lungs soon enough, but I'd like to hear your side first.

Or is creationism simply the art of piggybacking off evolution and hijacking science for your own ends?

 

[Resha Caner]

In which case I think my arguments still hold. Given the amount of available evidence, is there any reason you believe it to be still only a hypothesis?

I'll try to cut to the chase. We need to go back to the first assumption I listed. Is it possible to scientifically detect intelligence? And even harder, intelligence that might be more advanced than our own?

That aside, what data has surfaced that you think challenges the "taint" that birds came from T-Rex, so to speak?

I'm confused. I don't think the taint has been removed. I was saying it is evolutionists who think new data removes the taint.

That has indeed happened. Without running to flip through my papers, one example that immediately springs to mind would be the Tiktaalik. I don't believe I'm cleared to post links on this forum, so search for it.

Sandwiches brought this up. You'll need to go back to post #49.

I'm afraid I don't follow you here. I'm guessing that you want a graph of (unit of) genetic changes vs time? Even though there's plenty of evidence from genetics to prove evolution, I can't say I know where to find a graph like that off the top of my head.

Yes, you've got the idea. When someone tests the aerodynamics of a new car (or plane wing), they don't start with a full size model. It's easier to cut it down to a smaller scale (say, 1/4 scale). But, it is improper to say that cutting the car down to 1/4 scale means the wind should move at 1/4 speed. One must understand the equations of fluid dynamics and change all the variables in a dimensionally consistent manner.

That such an idea has not been introduced to biology is telling (sorry if that sounds a bit pompous).

So, I'm saying time is the unmanageable variable in evolution (and maybe population size as well) that needs to be cut down for a reasonable experiment. The fact that the paper you cited moved 10 organisms from one island to another and concluded they had witnessed evolution was, to be honest, a bit disturbing to me. But I don't know biology well, so maybe there are reasons to think that is acceptable. I can just tell you that such an approach in other fields would be laughed at. There is the issue of statistical significance that needs to be dealt with here.

I suppose commercial interests and pressures on scientists are an unavoidable fact of life. But I believe you know what I'm talking about. Do you think any credible and/or competent scientist would, upon failing to arrive at the desired outcome for his experiments, immediately blame the scientific method?

No, I don't think he would. I was just taking a stab at your rather purist presentation. As an engineer, I do science in the real world.

Since you know it well, then to repeat my question: which parts of the scientific method do you think needs to be questioned, and why?

Most people learn method as a verification process rather than a falsification process. In an Internet forum we can all nod our heads and say we agree with falsification, but in my experience that is not what is taught and practiced in the real world.

There is not "the one method" where I can go to ISO and ask for a document detailing "the one method." So, in the real world, scientists are actually following many and varied methods particular to their field. They may share similarities but all that really makes is a nice statue to put in the front hall. It doesn't speak to the difficulties of executing science.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the creationist clings on to blind belief in his deity and holy book of choice and claim that his beliefs are true without the slightest shred of evidence ...

I would say that you are mistaken. So I guess this brings us to assumptions about what constitutes "evidence."

Why wouldn't it?

Are you not familiar with Laetoli? I'd assume you're familiar with the Paluxy hoax that was a black mark on creationists. Laetoli was the evolutionist debacle. I don't have the details at hand, but off the top of my head what I recall is that some footprints were found in a geological layer that indicated they were older than the oldest known human. Creationists jumped on it as evidence that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. A prominent evolutionist lashed back that they were obviously australopithecus (I think) and not human. Then someone pointed out that australopithecus supposedly didn't coexist with dinosaurs either. There was then some red-face hemming and hawing about how it must be an undiscovered species.

So, the reasoning revealed in that incident is: There is no evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Therefore, if footprints are found, it cannot be evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

If such circular reasoning is to be used, what would be made of your example?

 

[Resha Caner]

Ah, the common creationist tactic of lying and then saying a person with a PhD agrees with them. He doesn't actually say that "he is confused by the bumblebee because, according to evolutionary principles, it should not exist.", does he?

Not gonna play that game, chris. You distort my words. I took care to note that the "PhD" supports evolution. The conclusion was mine, and I provided some quotes to explain to you why I made that conclusion.

ad hominem debate doesn't work, so I'm moving on.

 

[Resha Caner]

Um, I'm sure he did. That's why we continue to use classical Newtonian physics to describe an overwhelmingly large number of every day phenomena, right?

I use Newtonian physics every day. But you need to familiarize yourself with my instrumentalist view. To me, science creates models of nature that never touch the truth of nature. Further, the practice of engineering is a parsimonious one. Why would I use Einstein's equation of motion when Newton's is much simpler and satisfies my requirements for accuracy?

At the same time, I would be a complete idiot to use Newtonian physics for extreme scales (the very fast, very large, very small, etc.)

You obviously know more about biology than I do, and I respect that. So, I'm going to try to do you a favor and suggest we drop this argument ... unless you're interested in learning more about physics. So far what you've done is show me that you're unfamiliar with what you're talking about. I've probably done the same with you and biology. But I would honestly like to understand the assumptions of biology better. If you can help me with that, I'd appreciate it. Or, if you want to learn more about physics, I can explain it to you (and maybe Wiccan will jump in since he disagrees with me on some issues and trumps me with educational level).

Not really. God knowing why whales have lungs is an entirely different matter from your assumption of God knowing how to best design organisms to fit their environment. I'll get to evolution's explanation of why whales have lungs soon enough, but I'd like to hear your side first.

Or is creationism simply the art of piggybacking off evolution and hijacking science for your own ends?

Not liking where this is going. You cut the most important lines of my posts. From post #81, "Understand that I'm not claiming that to be a scientific explanation." And, from post #75, "If it's [creationism] going to play in the science arena, it must agree to the rules of science."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was unintentional. But I do want to highlight those comments before we move on.

 

[chris4243]

I love the book Bumblebee Economics. A book by a well-respected biology professor who supports evolution ... and yet he is confused by the bumblebee because, according to evolutionary principles, it should not exist. Yet it does. So, he sets out to solve the mystery. The book ends with a lot of philosophical musing and no scientific conclusions. I'm not quite sure why he published it, but it is a gem to read (for a creationist anyway). The whole time I was reading it, the thought that kept screaming at me was: Maybe one of your assumptions is wrong.

Not gonna play that game, chris. You distort my words. I took care to note that the "PhD" supports evolution. The conclusion was mine, and I provided some quotes to explain to you why I made that conclusion.

ad hominem debate doesn't work, so I'm moving on.

Fair enough, I thought you had said it was "he", the PhD, rather than "me", the poster, that was confused by the bumblebee because, according to evolutionary principles, it should not exist. My bad, I apologize for misunderstanding you.

 

[Resha Caner]

Fair enough, I thought you had said it was "he", the PhD, rather than "me", the poster, that was confused by the bumblebee because, according to evolutionary principles, it should not exist. My bad, I apologize for misunderstanding you.

np

 

[sabercroft]

I'm confused. I don't think the taint has been removed. I was saying it is evolutionists who think new data removes the taint.

So am I. What do you mean when you say "taint", exactly? And what does it have anything to do with your apparent contention that birds evolving from dinosaurs is merely a hypothesis despite the available evidence?

Sandwiches brought this up. You'll need to go back to post #49.

And you've hardly given a satisfactory reply. You posed one possibility that, if fulfilled, would be convincing evidence for evolution. It turns out that the possibility was indeed fulfilled. What say you now?

Yes, you've got the idea. When someone tests the aerodynamics of a new car (or plane wing), they don't start with a full size model. It's easier to cut it down to a smaller scale (say, 1/4 scale). But, it is improper to say that cutting the car down to 1/4 scale means the wind should move at 1/4 speed. One must understand the equations of fluid dynamics and change all the variables in a dimensionally consistent manner.

That such an idea has not been introduced to biology is telling (sorry if that sounds a bit pompous).

So, I'm saying time is the unmanageable variable in evolution (and maybe population size as well) that needs to be cut down for a reasonable experiment. The fact that the paper you cited moved 10 organisms from one island to another and concluded they had witnessed evolution was, to be honest, a bit disturbing to me. But I don't know biology well, so maybe there are reasons to think that is acceptable. I can just tell you that such an approach in other fields would be laughed at. There is the issue of statistical significance that needs to be dealt with here.

First off, I believe you've mistaken me for someone else, as I haven't cited any papers here. I believe my posting privileges still do not allow me to post links.

Second, I don't think your analogy is a valid one. Since I don't know which cited paper by who you had in mind, I assume from your description that you're talking about speciation, which is one of the mechanisms of evolution. In that case we were not trying to test the degree to which speciation occurred, I'll assume It was given as proof that speciation actually occurred at all. If we carried out an aerodynamics test using a model we'd need to tweak the parameters to ensure that the test results are applicable to the actual object, but the principles of aerodynamics still apply to the model all the same! If you were proposing an experiment to simply test for the presence of aerodynamic effects on objects instead of testing the degree of aerodynamic effects on objects of various geometry, you would be able to achieve that aim by testing with a scaled-down models just as well as with full-size objects.

No, I don't think he would. I was just taking a stab at your rather purist presentation. As an engineer, I do science in the real world.

I'm a (mechanical) engineer as well, just one with interests in biology and computer science as well, not just the physical sciences.

Most people learn method as a verification process rather than a falsification process. In an Internet forum we can all nod our heads and say we agree with falsification, but in my experience that is not what is taught and practiced in the real world.

There is not "the one method" where I can go to ISO and ask for a document detailing "the one method." So, in the real world, scientists are actually following many and varied methods particular to their field. They may share similarities but all that really makes is a nice statue to put in the front hall. It doesn't speak to the difficulties of executing science.

You're free to name any part of any scientific methodology, as practised in the real world, that needs to be questioned. Having done that, you're free to name any discovery that the theory of evolution is based on, that was arrived at using those questionable scientific methods.

I would say that you are mistaken. So I guess this brings us to assumptions about what constitutes "evidence."

It would appear so. What then do you think constitutes as evidence for creationism? Or do you think that's a topic left for another thread (I apologize if I've gone off-topic here)?

Are you not familiar with Laetoli? I'd assume you're familiar with the Paluxy hoax that was a black mark on creationists. Laetoli was the evolutionist debacle. I don't have the details at hand, but off the top of my head what I recall is that some footprints were found in a geological layer that indicated they were older than the oldest known human. Creationists jumped on it as evidence that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. A prominent evolutionist lashed back that they were obviously australopithecus (I think) and not human. Then someone pointed out that australopithecus supposedly didn't coexist with dinosaurs either. There was then some red-face hemming and hawing about how it must be an undiscovered species.

So, the reasoning revealed in that incident is: There is no evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Therefore, if footprints are found, it cannot be evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

I agree, that line of reasoning sounds completely dubious. Though while I am in agreement that the door should not be closed entirely to the possibility that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, I don't think the only option we have is to leap to the conclusion that humans and dinosaurs co-existed either without further evidence.

Even so, I don't see how the Laetoli footprints conclude that humans and dinosaurs co-existed at all (though, as I've said, I don't believe in throwing that idea out of the window wholesale if evidence for it exists). The footprints date to the Pliocene age, while dinosaurs were well on their way to extinction during the Cretaceous. If the footprints were truly made by H. Sapiens as opposed to an upright bipedal hominid, we have yet to discover any indication of culture or intelligence on the level of H. Sapiens in the Pliocene era, nor any fossil remains to indicate their existence at all.

If such circular reasoning is to be used, what would be made of your example?

Notice how I said fossil remains in my example. That would indeed leave evolutionists with very little wiggle room at all other to have a long, hard look at the theory of evolution.

 

[chris4243]

a graph of (unit of) genetic changes vs time

That such an idea has not been introduced to biology is telling (sorry if that sounds a bit pompous).

What do you mean, biologists don't know about molecular clocks? I could have sworn they mentioned it in biology class, but you're right that it's very telling that such an idea hasn't been introduced to biology, and don't worry about sounding pompous that was a very good point you made.

The molecular clock will give the approximate time since evolutionary divergence of two different species. The number of genetic differences between two species is compared to the rate of mutation observed to determine the time required for the two species to accumulate that number of differences.

It gets a bit more complicated than that, because some mutations are more common than others, and some when they happen are more commonly eliminated by natural selection (eg, the third nucleotide in a codon is much more likely to result in a silent mutation so that natural selection doesn't act on it, while a mutation in the proteins composing the active site of an enzyme generally can't change without destroying the enzyme's function).

Anyhow, the molecular clock data also matches the phylogenetic trees.

So, I'm saying time is the unmanageable variable in evolution (and maybe population size as well) that needs to be cut down for a reasonable experiment. The fact that the paper you cited moved 10 organisms from one island to another and concluded they had witnessed evolution was, to be honest, a bit disturbing to me. But I don't know biology well, so maybe there are reasons to think that is acceptable. I can just tell you that such an approach in other fields would be laughed at. There is the issue of statistical significance that needs to be dealt with here.

Oh, do tell, what mistakes did they make when calculating the statistical significance of their study? Bonus points: what's the statistical significance of creationism? I can only assume the statistical significance of creationist hypotheses must be much greater than those of evolutionary hypotheses otherwise you would look hypocritical.

Most people learn method as a verification process rather than a falsification process. In an Internet forum we can all nod our heads and say we agree with falsification, but in my experience that is not what is taught and practiced in the real world.

That's true. Generally what I focus on is rejection of the Null Hypotheses and finding a very small probability that the data matched the theory by chance, then translate that to being verification of the hypothesis to that level of confidence. Attempted falsification is generally reserved for well-established theories or suspect-looking studies. Though I suppose non-rejection of the Null Hypothesis would be the most obvious way to falsify something.

Are you not familiar with Laetoli? ... Creationists jumped on it as evidence that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. A prominent evolutionist lashed back that they were obviously australopithecus (I think) and not human. Then someone pointed out that australopithecus supposedly didn't coexist with dinosaurs either.

And here I thought there were no dinosaurs 3.5 million years ago.

 

[sabercroft]

I use Newtonian physics every day. But you need to familiarize yourself with my instrumentalist view. To me, science creates models of nature that never touch the truth of nature. Further, the practice of engineering is a parsimonious one. Why would I use Einstein's equation of motion when Newton's is much simpler and satisfies my requirements for accuracy?

You need to read back on what I said: "I'd rather think Einstein expanded on them. Nothing was thrown out of the window, so to speak." If the fact that you and I still use Newtonian physics every day doesn't mean that it wasn't thrown out of the window, what does?

Not liking where this is going. You cut the most important lines of my posts. From post #81, "Understand that I'm not claiming that to be a scientific explanation." And, from post #75, "If it's [creationism] going to play in the science arena, it must agree to the rules of science."

If you're not claiming it to be a scientific explanation, then what are you claiming it to be? A haphazard guess? A mere postulate? One that you're happy to accept even though it appears that you're incapable of explaining it?

 

[Resha Caner]

First off, I believe you've mistaken me for someone else, as I haven't cited any papers here. I believe my posting privileges still do not allow me to post links.

Ugh. You're right. It was jro who posted the link. Sorry about that. I'm tired and things were moving fast there for a few posts.

Second, I don't think your analogy is a valid one. ... If we carried out an aerodynamics test using a model we'd need to tweak the parameters to ensure that the test results are applicable to the actual object, but the principles of aerodynamics still apply to the model all the same!

I guess we've gotten a bit twisted up here. My challenge was that I don't think evolution has codified itself such that it could use dimensional analysis to do such a test. If it could, that wouldn't certainly be impressive.

I'm a (mechanical) engineer as well, just one with interests in biology and computer science as well, not just the physical sciences.

Cool. As I said earlier, I detest biology. But, since this topic always floats to the top I try to stay up to date.

You're free to name any part of any scientific methodology, as practised in the real world, that needs to be questioned. Having done that, you're free to name any discovery that the theory of evolution is based on, that was arrived at using those questionable scientific methods.

I did. I said that if someone uses a verification method, I find that questionable. I hate to admit it, but the limitations of my job often force me into taking a verificationist stance and I hate it. It always makes me nervous because I've been burned by it.

But you're pushing me to claim something I don't want to claim. Other than a wish that I could do falsification tests rather than verification tests, I'm not trying to diminish scientific method. I'm trying to say that it doesn't hold a special, exalted place. It's as unverified as anything else we could talk about.

Notice how I said fossil remains in my example. That would indeed leave evolutionists with very little wiggle room at all other to have a long, hard look at the theory of evolution.

OK. You're right, though my skepticism leads me to believe they would try to wiggle nonetheless.

It would appear so. What then do you think constitutes as evidence for creationism? Or do you think that's a topic left for another thread (I apologize if I've gone off-topic here)?

No, we can talk about it here. We could approach this 2 different ways. First, we could discuss measurement theory, and from that ask ourselves what limits such theories place on scientific evidence.

Or, second, we could talk about types of evidence other than scientific evidence.

 

[sabercroft]

I did. I said that if someone uses a verification method, I find that questionable.

And why would that be? I've always been under the impression that being able to verify something is a better way to prove something than trying to falsify it and failing, but please do tell.

No, we can talk about it here. We could approach this 2 different ways. First, we could discuss measurement theory, and from that ask ourselves what limits such theories place on scientific evidence.

Or, second, we could talk about types of evidence other than scientific evidence.

That's great. I'm comfortable with whichever way you choose. Do you think my previous question (what do you think is proof for creationism) is a good starting point?

 

[Resha Caner]

You need to read back on what I said: "I'd rather think Einstein expanded on them. Nothing was thrown out of the window, so to speak." If the fact that you and I still use Newtonian physics every day doesn't mean that it wasn't thrown out of the window, what does?

Sigh. OK. What equation do you use for gravitational effects? I use F = mg. Why? Because it's stupid simple and it works really well. But guess what. That's not even Newtonian! That equation goes back to Galileo and Newton showed him to be wrong. So why do engineers still use it?

Because it's stupid simple and it works really well - not because it's "right." Would you like some other examples? Let's talk about the elastic constant that I mentioned early on in this thread (i.e. Hooke's Law). Is it "right"? No, it was proven wrong in a big controversy during the Enlightenment. But engineers still use it. Why?

(repeating myself) Because linear equations like F = kx are stupid simple and work really well.

It's an issue of parsimony, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with what has been proven or not proven. And then engineers scratch their heads when they run into a complex problem where linear methods don't work. Go figure. I've beat my head against that wall for an entire career.

If you're not claiming it to be a scientific explanation, then what are you claiming it to be? A haphazard guess? A mere postulate? One that you're happy to accept even though it appears that you're incapable of explaining it?

Within this thread? I haven't claimed it to be anything. I think it's obvious that much more attention has been paid to evolutionary research. I'm not trying to deny that. So, at the moment it's a matter of faith.

Personally, I don't think science can find God ... though in other threads people like Wiccan have tried to convince me that if he exists, then science can find him. So, I'll go back to my original question: what is the difference in the assumptions. There is the one about proving the past. I like that such came out of this thread. That's a cool new thought for me.

If creationism were going to be a science, I can think of 2 areas it might want to focus on. The first would be that genetic mutation offers 3 possibilities: 1) working with natural selection it promotes survival (the evolutionary position), 2) it promotes extinction, 3) it can only change a species a limited amount. As I said, back in Darwin's time some work was done on #3. I don't know if much has happened since, though I do recall seeing a few scattered papers touching on the subject.

Second, it would need to develop the idea that intelligence can be detected. I've always thought SETI was a goofy waste of time, but maybe there is some common ground there. Wouldn't that be a sight! People wearing tin hats and looking for UFOs sitting next to flat earthers!

But, before heading that direction, I wonder what evolutionary assumptions would change in the process of developing those areas.

 

[sabercroft]

Sigh. OK. What equation do you use for gravitational effects? I use F = mg. Why? Because it's stupid simple and it works really well. But guess what. That's not even Newtonian! That equation goes back to Galileo and Newton showed him to be wrong. So why do engineers still use it?

Yes, I know classical mechanics don't hold in lightspeed conditions or when we approach the microscopic scale. I guess we're just arguing semantics here. My point was essentially that relativity theory and quantum mechanics didn't mean we threw out classical mechanics completely, nor did Einstein and Planck arrive at their discoveries by ignoring the scientific method.

 

[Resha Caner]

And why would that be? I've always been under the impression that being able to verify something is a better way to prove something than trying to falsify it and failing, but please do tell.

As I said, I've seen many times where an engineer "verifies" a design and then it goes to production and fails. It requires an omniscience we just don't have. At the same time, I'm conceding that for pragmatic reasons it is often chosen over the idealistic preference for falsification.

So, in the end, we unintentionally falsify while deluding ourselves that we're verifying.

Or, as one of my colleagues likes to say, "We never have time to do it right, but we always have time to fix it later."

That's great. I'm comfortable with whichever way you choose. Do you think my previous question (what do you think is proof for creationism) is a good starting point?

No. It's not a good starting point. I'm not sure where to start, so I'll just jump in. As that same colleague from above says, "take the easy bad choice rather than the hard bad choice."

I will say that scientific evidence requires the ability to measure. And by that, I mean that a parameter can be quantified. If that is an accepted view, it places limitations on what science can do. Yes or no?