Creation/Evolution Fundamental Assumptions

[sabercroft]

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.

I think verification takes on an vastly different significance in the engineering design process than it does in science. A structure fails because the engineer neglects to verify it against every possible combination of conditions and loads that the structure is expected to withstand over its period of life, of which there may be a mind-boggling set of variables involved.

The verification of scientific facts is much more straightforward. E.g. how old is this rock sample? Perform radiometric dating on it, and voila. How much lateral load can material X with geometry Y withstand? Place the appropriate sample under varying magnitudes of loading and wait for it to fail, there you go. Does this species of micro-organism have nuclei in their cells? Stain it and put it under a microscope, done.

Verification, when it is possible, is a far better method of proving something IMHO, because it gives conclusive proof that something is actually true instead of having to eliminate a vast (and possibly infinite) number of other possibilities and deduce that something has a high probability of being true because we've not been able to falsify it.

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?

A parameter that can be quantified and/or qualified. But yes. If both an event/entity and everything related to it cannot be measured in any way, then I don't see how science can possibly have anything to say about it. Example: the existence of the supernatural.

Step one cleared, onward to step 2?

 

[Research6]

- The evolutionists will never admit their theory is assumption based which shows how dogmatic they are, they are fundamentalists. There is literally even a 'darwin shrine' in London.

 

[Cabal]

- The evolutionists will never admit their theory is assumption based which shows how dogmatic they are, they are fundamentalists. There is literally even a 'darwin shrine' in London.

Really? That's news to me.

I mean, there's the statue in the Natural History Museum, and there's his grave in Westminster Abbey. But those are hardly shrines, never seen anyone worshipping there. Source please.

 

[sabercroft]

- The evolutionists will never admit their theory is assumption based which shows how dogmatic they are, they are fundamentalists. There is literally even a 'darwin shrine' in London.

What is there to admit, basically?

What convincing arguments have you shown, other than display your total ignorance about the topic? Or just because you creationists are convinced by ignorance, you believe that everyone else should too?

 

[MattRose]

Evolution is being believed by more and more of us and it's results are deadly. You can see articles in the news almost weekly where some whales or dolphins has beached themselves trying to evolve.

 

[Resha Caner]

A parameter that can be quantified and/or qualified. But yes. If both an event/entity and everything related to it cannot be measured in any way, then I don't see how science can possibly have anything to say about it. Example: the existence of the supernatural.

I intentionally left out "qualified." So, points to you for noticing, but that means you now need to define for me how one qualifies a parameter.

 

[Resha Caner]

- The evolutionists will never admit their theory is assumption based which shows how dogmatic they are, they are fundamentalists. There is literally even a 'darwin shrine' in London.

OK, I'm curious. Since you mentioned earlier that you are not a creationist, what is your position?

 

[Research6]

OK, I'm curious. Since you mentioned earlier that you are not a creationist, what is your position?

Non-religious intelligent design.

 

[sandwiches]

I called it a rant because it seemed to trivialize and generalize things when from my perspective the issue is that you don't understand. With that said, I'm sure you've heard some pretty moronic statements from creationists. Not everyone can win the Nobel Prize, which is a digression but also, I think an important point to some of these discussions. I would bet relatively few people actually understand what they're talking about. They're just parroting what they've heard from the people they trust. I see it happen at work. I know which engineers understand what they're doing and which don't. But, sure, give me an example. Just don't expect that I'll agree it is a necessary creationist position.

Again, I think you're missing the point. I wasn't trying to point out that creationists are stupid or anything similar. You asked about assumptions, I told you where the assumptions lie for both and I was merely indicating that creationists aren't consistent in their assumptions and they believe their ideas trump all over their senses or those of anyone else.

Some examples of this ad hoc reasoning and special pleading are when a Christian asserts that the Bible is true because of the "prophecies" that were fulfilled. When asked if this also applies to other books which make similar claims, they reject them, inconsistently applying logic. When asked where the evidence is for the flood, some say that the evidence was hidden, destroyed, or cleaned up. Again, when we see if this logic also applies to other similar claims without evidence, they reject them as well. Another little inconsistency that I enjoy is the hyperskepticism of many religious when it comes to things that they think contradict their dogma, yet they readily accept unsubstantiated claims for their faith and even make excuses as to why their beliefs require no evidence.

With the above said, my dirty little secret is that I absolutely hate biology. It has nothing to do with evolution. It's just part of my personality. I love physics, chemistry is the middle and is so-so for me, and biology is waaaaaay at the bottom.

Well, to each their own. I hate social sciences for the most part. No big deal.

So, for me, it's a bummer that evolution is the one everybody gets emotional about. I'd much rather it be the controversy over the elastic constant or gravity or Buridan's alternative to the Newtonian system.

Then talk to dad who will debate you about the distant past and deep space.

I say that because if you're asking for technically detailed assumptions about evolution, I won't be able to give you a good one. I'm honestly asking. If you want me to give assumptions from physics to provide an analogy - that I can do.

No. You said that "the role of assumptions in science is vastly underrated and misunderstood." So, I was merely asking for some examples.

 

[sandwiches]

- The evolutionists will never admit their theory is assumption based which shows how dogmatic they are, they are fundamentalists. There is literally even a 'darwin shrine' in London.

Who are you referring to? I could be wrong, but I haven't seen a single atheist or evolution supporter here say evolution isn't based on some assumptions.

So, either quote them or admit you're lying. Plain and simple.

 

[sandwiches]

Evolution is being believed by more and more of us and it's results are deadly. You can see articles in the news almost weekly where some whales or dolphins has beached themselves trying to evolve.

LOL

This is a joke, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL

This is a joke, right?

Oh, now it's funny?

Aren't you guys always harping on whales having hind legs?

 

[sandwiches]

Oh, now it's funny?

Aren't you guys always harping on whales having hind legs?

ROFL

Oh man... I could not make this up...

News at 11: Evolution is bad because whales beach themselves thinking they have hind legs!

 

[VehementisDominus]

Oh, now it's funny?

Aren't you guys always harping on whales having hind legs?

Vestigially, yes.

Problem?

 

[AV1611VET]

ROFL

Oh man... I could not make this up...

News at 11: Evolution is bad because whales beach themselves thinking they have hind legs!

114 --

 

[sandwiches]

114 --

I understand that whales have vestigial legs, but it is ridiculous to say that the theory of evolution is bad BECAUSE whales are beaching themselves. It's nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand that whales have vestigial legs, but it is ridiculous to say that the theory of evolution is bad BECAUSE whales are beaching themselves. It's nonsense.

Well, for the record, there are better reasons: 1

 

[VehementisDominus]

Well, for the record, there are better reasons:

Those are stupid reasons.

They all rely on the Bible being true, which it just isn't.

 

[Jro]

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.

We've already seen speciation occur several times.

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.

We don't have the exact order of evolution, but we have something quite close. Given the fossil record and the sheer number of species that have existed, you might as well ask which individual animal gave birth to the human race. What we can do is construct phylogenetic trees, make predictions based on them and then conduct further research. These predictions are confirmed or denied and support or invalidate the trees. We are human, dealing with imperfect methods and faltering through history, but hey, it works.

OK. I'll try to get to it.

When you have time- it is a good general discussion of the uses of genetics in evidencing evolution and the independent methods that are used to verify phylogenetic trees.

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

I disagree with you, but it's possible that that's because I'm only exposed to one form of evolution. Could you speak on this a bit more?

See my answer in post #81.

Again, you're misunderstanding- the pattern I'm talking about does not have to do with function or environment. There is no reason why we ned different types of limbs to do the same job. The patterns of similarity and difference don't make sense without referring to the evolutionary history of an organism.

Also, I have a question for you: you say that science can detect intelligence, but wouldn't the prediction that logically follows from ID be that you can't detect intelligently made objects because every single object in the universe would be intelligently made?

 

[Resha Caner]

Some examples of this ad hoc reasoning and special pleading are when a Christian asserts that the Bible is true because of the "prophecies" that were fulfilled. When asked if this also applies to other books which make similar claims, they reject them, inconsistently applying logic.

I've been challenged with this issue and it is admittedly a difficult one for a believer to wrestle with. The conclusion I came to makes many of my fellow Christians very nervous - my wife hates how I answer this question. But, I think it's the most honest answer.

I typically use Mohamed's inspirations as an example. The bottom line is that I would allow for 5 possibilities (only some of which you would consider), but they are the same 5 possibilities I apply to the Bible. 1) Mohammed was lying, 2) he had a mental problem of some kind, 3) he really only meant it in some allegorical or metaphorical way, 4) it was demons, 5) it was God. It is that I an willing to consider #5 that disturbs some Christians the most. Yet there is precedent in the Bible for God speaking to someone who subsequently misunderstands or abuses that privilege (think of Saul). So, if it could happen to Saul, it could happen to Mohamed.

Which of the 5 was it? I don't know and I don't really care. The Koran is inconsistent with the Bible. So, I can choose either or none, but IMO logic prohibits me from accepting both. The fact that I chose the Bible and not the Koran is then a whole different discussion.

No. You said that "the role of assumptions in science is vastly underrated and misunderstood." So, I was merely asking for some examples.

I guess I'm still not clear what you're asking for. 1) Are asking for an example of an assumption in biology? If so, as I said, I'm not sure I could give you a good one. It's the reason for this thread. But if you're challenging me as if to say that biology has no assumptions, well, that will be a might tall order to fill. 2) Are you asking for just any example from science of an assumption? That I can do. 3) Are you asking for an example of an assumption that was overlooked (at least for a time). I can do that, too, though it probably wouldn't come from biology.