Creation Science Evangelism

Pete Harcoff · Oct 13, 2003

john crawford said:
A scientific "theory" may be based on physical observation but the theory itself exists only in the human mind. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Eh, fine. I'm not going to split hairs over definitions (of metaphysics).

the_malevolent_milk_man · Oct 13, 2003

You're still not understanding.

A hypothesis is just an educated guess at what will happen or what was likely to have happened. It can exist within a theory. You have to have some knowledge of the subject before you can make a hypothesis otherwise it's just a random guess. Evolution started out as a hypothesis because it was based on an observation of facts. These facts were then more accuratley explained as a theory once sufficient evidence and understand had been obtained.

Evolution started out as a theory based upon observations, actual physical, tangible, non metaphysical observations and evidence. Some of it, punctuated evolution for example, has been hypothesized based upon the facts and an educated guess at what is a very probable answer. Still, even this hypothesis is not metaphysical since if true, which it most likely is, it is tangible and physical in the evidence it has left behind evident in the fossil record. Once/if it has been validated then it will officially become part of the theory. As of now it's pretty well accepted that it is possible and integrated into, or at least alluded to, when teaching evolution.

Call it a hypothesis till you're blue in the face but until you can comprehend what these words mean you might as well call it a cupcake. Didn't you ever have to do High School science fair projects?

the_malevolent_milk_man · Oct 13, 2003

john crawford said:
A scientific "theory" may be based on physical observation but the theory itself exists only in the human mind. What is so difficult to understand about that?

The thought exists within the mind, but the evidence for the theory exists as a tangible or observable effect. The theory within our minds is merely a way of putting objects and processes into words so we can communicate with them. Without that physical evidence there would be no theory.

john crawford · Oct 13, 2003

Arikay said:
So, Germ Theory exists only in our mind?

Yes. It is the nature of all human theory to exist only in the human mind.
No theory has ever been physically observed by humans in time or space.
Theories are not composed of molecules or atoms.
Neither are they sub-atomic particles.
They have no known mass and neither ripple, vibrate nor shimmy.
They can only be thought to exist in a non-physical realm.

Arikay · Oct 13, 2003

so you don't believe in germs?

john crawford said:
Yes. It is the nature of all human theory to exist only in the human mind.
No theory has ever been physically observed by humans in time or space.
Theories are not composed of molecules or atoms.
Neither are they sub-atomic particles.
They have no known mass and neither ripple, vibrate nor shimmy.
They can only be thought to exist in a non-physical realm.

LorentzHA · Oct 13, 2003

john crawford said:
Objects can be observed, experienced, and perceived by the physical senses but theories only exist in the human mind, therefore they are metaphysical. (extra-sensory perception)

BUT- the theories desrcibe the the physical world, so they are grounded to the physical and reality. A theory is a collection of words, so are all words also metaphysical? Not saying you are right or wrong I would just like more info please.

john crawford · Oct 13, 2003

Postman:

"A hypothesis is just an educated guess at what will happen or what was likely to have happened."

That's why I call evolutionary theory a hypothesis.

"You have to have some knowledge of the subject before you can make a hypothesis otherwise it's just a random guess."

So a hypothesis is an educated guess. That's better.

"Evolution started out as a hypothesis because it was based on an observation of facts."

Facts cannot be an object of scientific observation. Physical objects are. Facts are metaphysical. They have no Atomic elements.

"These facts were then more accuratley explained as a theory once sufficient evidence and understand had been obtained."

What facts? What evidence?

"Evolution started out as a theory based upon observations, actual physical, tangible, non metaphysical observations and evidence."

Your thesis opened with the claim that evolution started out as a hypothesis. Could you clarify your premises?

"Some of it, punctuated evolution for example, has been hypothesized based upon the facts and an educated guess at what is a very probable answer."

Are you referring to Gould's hypothesis of 'punctuated equilibrium'?

Gould's hypothesis is as metaphysical as is the word 'true'.

Truth is not an object for scientific observation.

Fossils are observable. Records are man-made.

Validation is an authoritarian process.

Officiators usually perform a divine service, according to my dictionary.

Everything that's pretty well accepted ought to be questioned and challenged by real scientists.

Thank God I was spared American High School science fair projects.

Pete Harcoff · Oct 13, 2003

john crawford said:
Postman:

"A hypothesis is just an educated guess at what will happen or what was likely to have happened."

That's why I call evolutionary theory a hypothesis.

But the fact that evolution has been repeatedly validated for the last 150 years is why it is a theory and no longer a mere hypothesis.

Go here for the differences between theories and hypotheses in science: http://www.wilstar.net/theories.htm

john crawford · Oct 13, 2003

the_malevolent_milk_man said:
The thought exists within the mind, but the evidence for the theory exists as a tangible or observable effect. The theory within our minds is merely a way of putting objects and processes into words so we can communicate with them. Without that physical evidence there would be no theory.

Milkman: Sorry, I was calling you Postman. My apologies.

Yes, I know that the objects (not evidence) which the theory or hypothesis of evolution attempts to explain are tangible and observable.
At least you now agree that the theory (within our minds) is merely a way of putting objects into a relationship with each other.
Evolutionary processes though, are still metaphysical because they are not directly observed by scientists but are merely imputed to be attributes of certain objects.

I admit that my hypothesis is difficult to comprehend but then, so is the hypothesis of biological evolution.

Especially if one is not a scientist.

john crawford · Oct 13, 2003

Arikay said:
so you don't believe in germs?

Arikay:

No, I don't believe in germs.

I believe that germs exist in the physical world but I don't believe in them any more than I believe in Germans, although they exist too.

I believe in God and His Spirit, don't you?

ThePhoenix · Oct 13, 2003

By your standards gravity is metaphysical. I reject those standards.

Arikay · Oct 13, 2003

So, I would assume that that means you accept the physical things that Germ Theory describes.

So, whether the theory itself is metaphysical or not, doesn't change the fact that it describes a real thing.
Just like evolution.

john crawford said:
Arikay:

No, I don't believe in germs.

I believe that germs exist in the physical world but I don't believe in them any more than I believe in Germans, although they exist too.

I believe in God and His Spirit, don't you?

john crawford · Oct 13, 2003

LorentzHA said:
BUT- the theories desrcibe the the physical world, so they are grounded to the physical and reality. A theory is a collection of words, so are all words also metaphysical? Not saying you are right or wrong I would just like more info please.

I appreciate your question, Loren.
Yes, scientific theories do attempt to describe and explain the physical world but they are not always grounded in either physics or reality (whatever the latter is). Reality is not a scientific term. It is more of a realigious term.
No one knows what reality is, much less if it even exists.
Reality is a word which many secularists use instead of religion or God.
Reality is like the Universe itself, ever expanding and contracting and existing only in the mind. It is not a subject for science, but philosophy.

Yes, all the words in your heart, soul, mind and spirit are metaphysical.
They do not exist at either end of a telescope or microscope, but only in our hearts, souls and minds. We hear, see and speak them but they exist in and of themselves whether we are alive or dead. Glory be to God that we humans have language at all.

There are some things so much greater than ourselves that we dare not put a name to them lest we be perceived by our neighbors as being too religious.

WayMan · Oct 13, 2003

You may not be familiar with reality, but it is most obvious you are not a stranger to cloud cuckoo land.

the_malevolent_milk_man · Oct 13, 2003

john crawford said:
Postman:

"A hypothesis is just an educated guess at what will happen or what was likely to have happened."

That's why I call evolutionary theory a hypothesis.

"You have to have some knowledge of the subject before you can make a hypothesis otherwise it's just a random guess."

So a hypothesis is an educated guess. That's better.

And an educated guess isn't just any old guess, you seem to have taken that as an admission that evolution is just a laymans guess. An educated guess, in scientific terms, would be "If I drop this ball it's gonna hit the ground" or "If I go try to pet that wild lion it's going to attack me". Based upon previous knowledge you can predict (make an educated guess) what will happen and how the theory will play out.

john crawford said:
"Evolution started out as a hypothesis because it was based on an observation of facts."

Facts cannot be an object of scientific observation. Physical objects are. Facts are metaphysical. They have no Atomic elements.

As for the rest of it... You seem to be living in some trippy alternate universe where you cannot comprehend objects as being translated into facts in a langauge.

john crawford said:
"These facts were then more accuratley explained as a theory once sufficient evidence and understand had been obtained."

What facts? What evidence?

Another thread, another time. No point in debating now when the basic principals of science are lost on you.

john crawford said:
"Evolution started out as a theory based upon observations, actual physical, tangible, non metaphysical observations and evidence."

john crawford said:
Your thesis opened with the claim that evolution started out as a hypothesis. Could you clarify your premises?

Bah, you got me on one typo. Evolution started out as a hypothesis, not a theory as I said the second time. You have to have a hypothesis before you have a concrete theory.

john crawford said:
"Some of it, punctuated evolution for example, has been hypothesized based upon the facts and an educated guess at what is a very probable answer."

Are you referring to Gould's hypothesis of 'punctuated equilibrium'?

Gould's hypothesis is as metaphysical as is the word 'true'.

Truth is not an object for scientific observation.

Fossils are observable. Records are man-made.

Validation is an authoritarian process.

Officiators usually perform a divine service, according to my dictionary.

Everything that's pretty well accepted ought to be questioned and challenged by real scientists.

Thank God I was spared American High School science fair projects.

Yes, I was referring to Gould.

Truth is the only thing science can observe. Science only deals with the physical, recordable, measurable, etc. Sometimes our interpretation of the facts is wrong but a fact is a fact is a fact.

Everything is quistioned and challenged thru a peer review in science. Evolution has stood up to all serious scrutiny.

It seems that you being "spared" a high school level science education is the root of so many misunderstandings.

john crawford · Oct 13, 2003

Pete Harcoff said:
But the fact that evolution has been repeatedly validated for the last 150 years is why it is a theory and no longer a mere hypothesis.

Go here for the differences between theories and hypotheses in science: http://www.wilstar.net/theories.htm

But, but, but........
'Facts' are metaphysical claims or assertions and do not consist of scientifically observable phenomena.

It is a metaphysical fact that the so-called biological theory of human evolution has never been scientifically proven because no scientist has ever presented any observable evidence of it, let alone offered repeated validation of the theory.

Whether human evolution is a hypothesis or a theory is irrelavent.
It is still a figment of one's imagination.
Imagination is a scientists best friend.
Just read the writings of Freud and Einstein.

Arikay · Oct 14, 2003

Of course, your version of "observable" discounts creationism as well, but thats ok.

Your version of "observable" also discounts most forensics. I guess we should let criminals out of jail because they were convicted with meta physics.

john crawford · Oct 14, 2003

ThePhoenix said:
By your standards gravity is metaphysical. I reject those standards.

You are as free to reject my standards and premises as I am to reject yours.

The force of gravity is a mental concept.
The force could equally be understood and appreciated as the force and power of God. It is easy to transpose concepts and words.
Newton just didn't want to give God the credit or acknowledge Him as the sole power Who rules all space and time.
May the force be with you.

chris320 · Oct 14, 2003

Pete Harcoff said:
Er no, Christian Science is based on Christianity...You might be thinking of something else (Scientology perhaps?).

I am not talking about Scientology. Christian Science is not mainline christianity. See the quote below:

"Christian Scientists call themselves Christians, but their beliefs deviate from Biblical Christianity on nearly every central Doctrine

...Since Christian Scientists do not believe that sin is real, they, therefore, see no need for salvation in Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding, Christian Scientists still teach a salvation based on works -- and contrary to even their own teachings, a salvation through victory over suffering and temptation

...Christian Science denies that the incarnation of Christ was the fullness of deity dwelling inhuman flesh, denies the perfection of the man Jesus, and attempts to explain away the historical death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ (Science and Health, pp. 336, 29, 332, 53, 398, 313, 593; Miscellaneous Writings, p. 201)"

rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/science.htm

-Chris320

Arikay · Oct 14, 2003

So, god is pulling me down to earth?

Wow, the force of god has killed so many people. Plunged planes into the ground, and given a hand to many suicides.

Creation Science Evangelism

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

HI

Electric Kool-Aid Girl

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

HI

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

HI

Well-Known Member

Charismatic Zionist

HI

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency