Creationists and research

[USincognito]

Lets take the arguments one at a time, and the one for now is whether the general theory of evolution is science or philosophy. I contend it is the latter, and no one has been able to provide a scientific theory of evolution yet.

Sigh. Here is the theory much modified since it was originally published. Here is the application of the Scientific Method to said theory including each evidences prediction, confirmation and potential falsification.

Why do people not investigate more before they make assertions like "{there's no} scientific theory of evolution?"

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

that is the comically bad physics he was referring to.

If you have privy information to the poor physics in this book, then I should like to see it. There has been much dialogue between the original author and old earth theists, but I have not seen anything by evolutionists. Not saying it doesn't exist, but I find it rather hard to believe that you personally are aware of the 'comically bad physics' in it. I could be wrong.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Sigh. Here is the theory much modified since it was originally published. Here is the application of the Scientific Method to said theory including each evidences prediction, confirmation and potential falsification.

Why do people not investigate more before they make assertions like "{there's no} scientific theory of evolution?"

Sigh again. Just giving something the label of "science" or "theory" does not make it such.

Take for example the statement "All ravens are black". That is a scientific statement. It is falsifiable (find a white raven), it is obvious how we can test it - find ravens to see if any aren't black. It is repeatable - we can test it again and again. It is also observable.

Take now the statement "All living things descend from a common ancestor". What is falsifiable about that? What is testable? What is repeatable? What is observable?

It is not science, unless someone can demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Jet Black]

Take now the statement "All living things descend from a common ancestor". What is falsifiable about that? What is testable? What is repeatable? What is observable?

you would expect to see a common mechanism of inheritance (we do) you would be able to see similarities (we do) you would expect to see vestigial organs (we do) you would expect to see atavisms (we do) you would expect to see morphological relationships (we do) you would expect to see nested hierarchies of orgamisms (we do) you would expect to see closer morphological and molecular similarities between closely related species (we do) you would expect to see inherited flaws (we do) and so on. Added to this there is a whole ream of things that we would not expect to see. The whole notion of common ancestry contains within it a number of things that you would and would not expect to see, and so far all the things we see fit in with that notion. When Darwin originally posited the idea of common ancestry, he had no idea what the mechanism of inheritance was (iirc he made a guess, but he was wrong), he had no idea what the mechanism of change was. There were a whole bunch of things that he did not know, but as we found out, these all fitted the original hypothesis of common ancestry perfectly.

Would you equate the idea of common ancestry with astronomy? since in certain scientific respects they are identical, since we cannot make or blow up stars, we can't form planets, or even watch them form* and so on.


so anyway, what is the point of all of this?


(*over reasonable funding timescales - if you can find a funding body willing to give me several million years of funding, please inform me)

 

[JGMEERT]

Sigh again. Just giving something the label of "science" or "theory" does not make it such.

JM: Correct! A good example is 'creation science'

Take now the statement "All living things descend from a common ancestor". What is falsifiable about that?

JM: If we find clones being generated in nature it would go a long way towards falsifying the statement. The statement is probably already falsified because it suggests that there is a single organism or population of organisms from which others descended. It seems far more likely that life arose in several places and 'common ancestors' would be a better phrase. I also think this 'falsifiable' notion is given far more credit in science than it deserves.

What is testable?

JM: Well, it's tested everyday. It makes predictions and retrodictions. Evolutionary theory predicts bacterial resistance to penicillin. It predicts that the sickle-cell gene will decrease in a population where malaria is non-existent. It retrodicts much in the fossil record. Some of my favorite retrodictions deal with the evolutionary ideas of the whale. Evolution retrodicted where we should find certain transitionals, their approximate age and the strata where they should be found. All of these are testable and observable. Many evolutionary experiments are also repeatable. In fact, genetic variation is repeated every single day when organisms reproduce, so is mutation. Both of these cause allele frequencies to vary over time. That's evolution!

It is not science, unless someone can demonstrate otherwise.

JM: YOur personal incredulity is noted, but it is an extremely poor argument. In fact, the scientific utility of evolution along with the evidence for evolution negates your own incredulity. If you have something of note to say scientifically and if you want to change science, then get out there and publish your findings. SHow us scientifically that our ideas are incorrect. Whining on the sidelines in a Christian forum will not change science. If you want to change it, you've got to do it!

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Jet Black]

If you have privy information to the poor physics in this book, then I should like to see it. There has been much dialogue between the original author and old earth theists, but I have not seen anything by evolutionists. Not saying it doesn't exist, but I find it rather hard to believe that you personally are aware of the 'comically bad physics' in it. I could be wrong.

Things in Black Holes stay in Black Holes.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

JM: Correct! A good example is 'creation science'

Mmm, very amusing.

JM: If we find clones being generated in nature it would go a long way towards falsifying the statement.

How so?

The statement is probably already falsified because it suggests that there is a single organism or population of organisms from which others descended. It seems far more likely that life arose in several places and 'common ancestors' would be a better phrase.

That's what the general theory of evolution states: that all things far enough back come from a single simple celled life. Not multiples, but once only. Abiogenesis is a large enough problem as it is, without adding 2+ instances of it occuring. How is this falsified?

I also think this 'falsifiable' notion is given far more credit in science than it deserves.

Or perhaps many things that are not science are given the inaccurate title of 'science', and would be better resigned to another area, such as 'philosophy'.

JM: Well, it's tested everyday. It makes predictions and retrodictions. Evolutionary theory predicts bacterial resistance to penicillin. It predicts that the sickle-cell gene will decrease in a population where malaria is non-existent.

You are confusing "common ancestor for all life" with "changes in allele frequencies in populations". I have no dispute with the latter, but I do with the former.

Some of my favorite retrodictions deal with the evolutionary ideas of the whale. Evolution retrodicted where we should find certain transitionals, their approximate age and the strata where they should be found. All of these are testable and observable.

Please give me a reference/evidence.

Many evolutionary experiments are also repeatable. In fact, genetic variation is repeated every single day when organisms reproduce, so is mutation. Both of these cause allele frequencies to vary over time. That's evolution!

That's not what we're talking about! I have already distinguished between the two uses of the word "evolution".
As one author pointed out:
Evolution A: that all living things descend from a common ancestor, that the earth is billions of years old, and that all species and genetic diversity today arose through random mutations.
Evolution B: that allele frequencies change in populations over time.

Evolution A includes Evolution B but Evolution B does not include Evolution A. The creation model also includes Evolution B. You won't find me argue against it or against natural selection. What I'm interested in is common ancestry of all living things.

Now imagine the hypotheses "if one excercises twice daily for two weeks, then that persons heart rate will go up". That is testable - we look at it and know exactly how to test. What you have proposed is nothing testable. You are talking about a philosophical model and logic. I want a test we can perform to strengthen the proposition that all living things descend from the same common ancestor.
The creation model states a completely different hypotheses. That not all living things descended from the same common ancestory. We state that all living things will find their earliest common parents around 6000 years ago, perhaps less, but never more.

JM: YOur personal incredulity is noted, but it is an extremely poor argument. In fact, the scientific utility of evolution along with the evidence for evolution negates your own incredulity. If you have something of note to say scientifically and if you want to change science, then get out there and publish your findings. SHow us scientifically that our ideas are incorrect. Whining on the sidelines in a Christian forum will not change science. If you want to change it, you've got to do it!

You want me to show you scientifically that the general theory of evolution is not scientific? Science does not test science. The question of whether a theory is scientific or not is a second order question - a philosophical question. It is not something that can be done scientifically, but must instead be done using logic. It seems to me that you are trying to latch on to the prestige of the word 'science' in this paragraph.
Besides, this is one of the many places where people engage in philosophical arguments. As far as I'm aware, there are no universally recognised philosophical journals to peer review arguments.

Hmm, I just saw your name and thought it looked familiar. You're the guy that made an offer to Walt Brown that was rejected, weren't you? I'm not sure why you were so confident to take up a debate with him when you don't know the differences between the two uses of the word "evolution", and where the creation model includes one and not the other. I thought it would be rather fundamental that you understand the creation model before you can argue against it. How is it you came to this thread? Do you sometimes browse christianforums.com, or were you summoned over by others on a mailing list?

It seems very strange to me you would reject his debate proposal. I read the following with interest:
www.trueorigin.org/Meert1.pdf
Is there any of that you consider inaccurate or an unfair representation?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Things in Black Holes stay in Black Holes.

Doesn't the Big Bang theory state that the universe was formed from a black hole? But anyway, you'll have to give more reason for your one line summary against Humphrey's model. How do you know that things stay in a black hole, but more importantly, what argument were you summing up?

 

[Jet Black]

Doesn't the Big Bang theory state that the universe was formed from a black hole?

no it doesn't. not that it matters really, I am not going to argue for the correctness of the Big Bang Hypothesis (or at the very lease I will not argue that the start point is correct. My personal hunch is that Ekpyrotic is alot nearer the mark, but I do not know enough about M-Theory to comment), just that his hypothesis is wrong

But anyway, you'll have to give more reason for your one line summary against Humphrey's model. How do you know that things stay in a black hole,

that is what the maths says.

but more importantly, what argument were you summing up?

his concept of "white hole cosmology"

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

you would expect to see a common mechanism of inheritance (we do) you would be able to see similarities (we do) you would expect to see vestigial organs (we do) you would expect to see atavisms (we do) you would expect to see morphological relationships (we do) you would expect to see nested hierarchies of orgamisms (we do) you would expect to see closer morphological and molecular similarities between closely related species (we do) you would expect to see inherited flaws (we do) and so on. Added to this there is a whole ream of things that we would not expect to see. The whole notion of common ancestry contains within it a number of things that you would and would not expect to see, and so far all the things we see fit in with that notion. When Darwin originally posited the idea of common ancestry, he had no idea what the mechanism of inheritance was (iirc he made a guess, but he was wrong), he had no idea what the mechanism of change was. There were a whole bunch of things that he did not know, but as we found out, these all fitted the original hypothesis of common ancestry perfectly.

How is any of this proof that all life shares a common ancestor as opposed to, say, the creation model: that a few different lifeforms were created, and that many things alive today have a common ancestor, but not all?
None of this is proof that far enough back all living things have a common ancestor.
And it still doesn't show a way to test the theory. What experiment can I perform to test the theory - that if the test fails, the theory will be proven false?

Would you equate the idea of common ancestry with astronomy? since in certain scientific respects they are identical, since we cannot make or blow up stars, we can't form planets, or even watch them form* and so on.

A friend mentioned to me about astronomy recently. But there are many things that science can measure (such as half lives) but cannot make comments on the unobservable (such as that decay has continued at a constant rate in the past). This is why scientists occasionally engage in logic/philosophy and don't realise they have crossed over.

so anyway, what is the point of all of this?

You already know - to demonstrate that the general theory of evolution is not science, to end (at least here) the ludicrous argument that the creation model is garbage simply because it is not a scientific theory.

(*over reasonable funding timescales - if you can find a funding body willing to give me several million years of funding, please inform me)

Not sure what you are referring to here.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

his concept of "white hole cosmology"

I was referring to the argument that Humphrey's model is untenable because things stay in black holes. Were you summing up a more full argument from elsewhere?

 

[JGMEERT]

Mmm, very amusing.

JM: AND VERY TRUE

That's what the general theory of evolution states:

JM It would help if you actually knew what evolution states.

Or perhaps many things that are not science are given the inaccurate title of 'science', and would be better resigned to another area, such as 'philosophy'.

JM: Yes, Intelligent design is an excellent example of philosophical religion incorrectly labeled as science. Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute made the statement that ID is better taught in religion or philosophy class since it does not yet have any scientific validity.

You are confusing "common ancestor for all life" with "changes in allele frequencies in populations".

JM: No, you're setting up a strawman by changing definitions without giving details. Give me a reference where you have published your works redefining evolution?

Please give me a reference/evidence.

JM: Go to GEOREF and look them up for yourself? Why should I do your legwork simply to see you dismiss the evidence with an armwave?

That's not what we're talking about! I have already distinguished between the two uses of the word "evolution".

JM: You and Kent Hovind think that you can change definitions and make an argument. If you want to talk science, stick with scientific definitions. If you don't like the definitions, then make your case in the scientific literature. Once you've done that, come back and we can talk.

The creation model states a completely different hypotheses. That not all living things descended from the same common ancestory. We state that all living things will find their earliest common parents around 6000 years ago, perhaps less, but never more.

JM: There is no 'creation model'. Where are the scientific research publications supporting any of this wild conjecture?

Hmm, I just saw your name and thought it looked familiar. You're the guy that made an offer to Walt Brown that was rejected, weren't you?

JM: Almost. I'm the one who has agreed to debate Walt Brown, signed the agreement with proposed changes. I'm the one who agreed that an independent judge should decide whehter or not my changes have any validity as per the rules given in Walt's original 'challenge'. I'm the one who agreed to debate no matter what the decision was on my request. I'm the one who still holds to my signature and who is ready to debate at any point in time where Walt decides to abide by his own rules.

It seems very strange to me you would reject his debate proposal.

JM: I have not rejected his debate at all. I have signed the debate agreement. I can do nothing more until he selects an editor and the editor decides whether or not my suggestions have any merit. If the editor concludes they have no merit, the debate goes on. If the editor decides my suggestions have merit, hmm I wonder if Walt will back out?

I read the following with interest:
www.trueorigin.org/Meert1.pdf
Is there any of that you consider inaccurate or an unfair representation?

JM: Yes. See http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[USincognito]

Sigh again. Just giving something the label of "science" or "theory" does not make it such.

Take for example the statement "All ravens are black". That is a scientific statement. It is falsifiable (find a white raven), it is obvious how we can test it - find ravens to see if any aren't black. It is repeatable - we can test it again and again. It is also observable.

Take now the statement "All living things descend from a common ancestor". What is falsifiable about that? What is testable? What is repeatable? What is observable?

It is not science, unless someone can demonstrate otherwise.

Sigh.. If you're not going to take and read the links I provide for you it's really frustrating.

Here's a thought. Instead of making some ambiguous statement about your interpretation of science you take the individual examples cited in the evidences (that are within the scientific method) I gave you and show how they are not scientific? Can you do that or will you just give me more ill defined, ambiguous objections that do little more than demonstrate an unwillingness to learn the process of science?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

JM: AND VERY TRUE

Your use of caps is extra persuasive.

JM It would help if you actually knew what evolution states.

A vague statement. If you would point me to where I have inaccurately presented evolution, I would appreciate it. I'm willing to let youknow where you inaccurately present creation.

JM: No, you're setting up a strawman by changing definitions without giving details. Give me a reference where you have published your works redefining evolution?

I have occasionally been asked to give a scientific theory of creation - the intention of the question being to prove that there is no scientific theory of creation. To which I respond, show me the scientific theory of evolution and I will respond in kind with a creation one. This is what they present:
"Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time." From talkorigins.org
To which I respond, I have no disagreement.
Your constant request for a reference of published works, or an article in a peer reviewed naturalistic journal, are all dodges. You should know or realise that such are not proofs. Shall I say to you that God exists, merely because so many people on earth believe him? Having works published or not is no sign of their correctness, something a student of philosophy should realise (not saying you are such a student).

JM: Go to GEOREF and look them up for yourself? Why should I do your legwork simply to see you dismiss the evidence with an armwave?

Apparently I need to pay to subscribe to search it. Either that or there were no results found.
I have already seen some talk of whale transitionals, I wanted to know exactly what you referring to. Why should you be permitted to make a vague reference, and expect me to find out what you were talking about? How about if I say "there's plenty of evidence to show a young earth", and then call you a fool because you don't bother to look it up yourself and accept it?

JM: You and Kent Hovind think that you can change definitions and make an argument. If you want to talk science, stick with scientific definitions. If you don't like the definitions, then make your case in the scientific literature. Once you've done that, come back and we can talk.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but I've been told the scientific definition of evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. If you have a problem with that definition, then you let me know. So far your accusations about me changing the definition is vague. Please be more precise. Surely you realise that the general theory of evolution that Darwin's "Origin of Species" presents is more than just one particular scientific theory? It is a collection of many various evidences and scientific theories (or lack of). After all, there's much in the general theory of evolution that could be shown wrong without disproving other parts. ie, whether or not the earth is billions of years old does not affect natural selection. Natural selection occurs, whether the earth is young or old.

JM: There is no 'creation model'. Where are the scientific research publications supporting any of this wild conjecture?

I have no idea what you are saying, and again its a dodge to say "scientific research publications" - I'm guessing you will outright reject any publications in the "Technical Journal" because that fails to follow naturalistic science beliefs. That's right, because today's definition of science, by popularity, requires naturalism. Unfortunately, Isaac Newton and others in history held no such naturalistic beliefs.

JM: Almost. I'm the one who has agreed to debate Walt Brown, signed the agreement with proposed changes. I'm the one who agreed that an independent judge should decide whehter or not my changes have any validity as per the rules given in Walt's original 'challenge'. I'm the one who agreed to debate no matter what the decision was on my request. I'm the one who still holds to my signature and who is ready to debate at any point in time where Walt decides to abide by his own rules.

JM: I have not rejected his debate at all. I have signed the debate agreement. I can do nothing more until he selects an editor and the editor decides whether or not my suggestions have any merit. If the editor concludes they have no merit, the debate goes on. If the editor decides my suggestions have merit, hmm I wonder if Walt will back out?

JM: Yes. See http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

I don't understand why on earth you would want an "independant" judge to decide on whether your topic includes religion or not. You should settle that between you, and obviously you are both fixed in your decisions. When do you ever ask a third person to decide on the topic of discussion?

Consider your "Addendum Request for Written Debate with Walt Brown (per claus #22)", near the bottom:

The foundations of any scientific theory must be open to discussion during a debate on that theory.

Of what relevance is the source of a theory? Darwin looks at finches change, and he wonders to himself "what if this is the process by which all life arose, and if we go far enough back all creatures would share an ancestor?". He had no proof at that time, just an idea to test. So he then looked for evidence for that. The foundation of his idea was just a vision, a thought, nothing more.
The Bible is much the same. We look at that and say "I wonder if the history that the Bible describes is true". So then, we look for evidences for that. The foundation is irrelevant to the discussion. One can have false premises and still have true conclusions. It could be that even if the Bible is not a work of God, that it still happens to have, by accident, recorded the truth of the history of earth. Whatever. The point is that the reasons for considering a theory in the first place are irrelevant at this point. What is important is whether the scientific evidence supports or denies that model.

I'd like to make a further note that you seem to have a pattern of making biased, loaded, claims. I take interest in this sentence:

However, I find it more interesting that Walt has refused an invitation to submit his article for review in a scientific journal. Despite all the back-and-forth rhetoric regarding the pseudodebate, Walt has been afraid to submit his work for critical review. Why? You be the judge!

You have not presented any evidence whatsoever for his reasons of not submitting to a naturalistic scientific journal (which you also insist on calling merely a 'scientific journal' in an attempt to make it look like we have some conspiracy). You have made some allusions to a possible reason for his refusal, then deliberately manipulated the reader to believe these unsupported allusions by saying "Why? You be the judge!". Its obvious what you want them to believe, but you fail to present proof of your reasons. Poor debate tactic.

I've already said there's no conspiracy. Naturalistic scientific journals reject creation articles for the same kind of reason that creation scientific journals reject naturalistic evolution articles. It's just so obvious! I don't appreciate your methods of debate, because they are deceptive. I will not say that all creationists are free from such methods - I've seen many do exactly the same thing. But I'm not talking to them at the moment - and I would appreciate you pointing out when I do the same thing too. I'm interested in logic and truth, not persuasion through manipulation.

I'm still interested in the question I asked you before:

How is it you came to this thread? Do you sometimes browse christianforums.com, or were you summoned over by others on a mailing list?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Sigh.. If you're not going to take and read the links I provide for you it's really frustrating.

Here's a thought. Instead of making some ambiguous statement about your interpretation of science you take the individual examples cited in the evidences (that are within the scientific method) I gave you and show how they are not scientific? Can you do that or will you just give me more ill defined, ambiguous objections that do little more than demonstrate an unwillingness to learn the process of science?

You sigh an awful lot. I never said that the general theory of evolution didn't use science to support some of its claims. I said that the general theory of evolution itself is not science. Consider the scientific theory "all ravens are black". I then say
1. All ravens are black
2. Black objects are harder to see at night than white objects
Therefore:
3. A white rabbit is easier to see in the dark than all ravens.
That is a philosophical argument that employs scientific proofs (1&2) to present its case. Now, for the off-topic discussion of your 29+ proofs, I point you to this link:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp (please note the little sidebar, it's so hard to write an article against the 29+ proofs if they keep modifying the original article)

Back to what you said above:

Can you do that or will you just give me more ill defined, ambiguous objections that do little more than demonstrate an unwillingness to learn the process of science?

Why do so many of you insist saying arrogant things that are merely designed to pretend you have won the argument before I have time to respond? These are nothing more than crowd swaying techniques. If you want to be specific about my "ill defined, ambiguous objections", then do so. I find it surprising that one would make "ill defined, ambiguous objections" about "ill defined, ambiguous objections".

 

[Jet Black]

How is any of this proof that all life shares a common ancestor as opposed to, say, the creation model: that a few different lifeforms were created, and that many things alive today have a common ancestor, but not all?
None of this is proof that far enough back all living things have a common ancestor.
And it still doesn't show a way to test the theory. What experiment can I perform to test the theory - that if the test fails, the theory will be proven false?

I see what you are saying, the problem is that the creationist argument can then be used for anything, but it has no dynamical basis and is entirely ad hoc.

A friend mentioned to me about astronomy recently. But there are many things that science can measure (such as half lives) but cannot make comments on the unobservable (such as that decay has continued at a constant rate in the past). This is why scientists occasionally engage in logic/philosophy and don't realise they have crossed over.

This is actually quite false. We can observe that the decay rate has remained constant in the past.

You already know - to demonstrate that the general theory of evolution is not science, to end (at least here) the ludicrous argument that the creation model is garbage simply because it is not a scientific theory.

some creation models are scientific theories, however they are either falsified (Global Flood), or not compatible with the General essence of Christian Theology.

Not sure what you are referring to here.

it's called a joke.

 

[Jet Black]

I was referring to the argument that Humphrey's model is untenable because things stay in black holes. Were you summing up a more full argument from elsewhere?

other than a summation of General Relativity, no.

 

[cfbro1]

evolution is a religion, just as much as Christianity is. it is a religion created by scientists. Scientists, who arent christians, say that evolution is extremely flawed. Society has latched on to the "theory" as a religion. had that not happened then the theory would have died a long time ago. When we came out with DNA testing it was supposed to prove evolution was true. what it did was the opposite. I hope this will help you i your life. If you belive in evolution you have greater faith than me.

 

[LorentzHA]

evolution is a religion, just as much as Christianity is. it is a religion created by scientists. Scientists, who arent christians, say that evolution is extremely flawed. Society has latched on to the "theory" as a religion. had that not happened then the theory would have died a long time ago. When we came out with DNA testing it was supposed to prove evolution was true. what it did was the opposite. I hope this will help you i your life. If you belive in evolution you have greater faith than me.

Odd, because it was scientists who were Christians that discovered it. What does the Theory of Evolution state? Please define this for us. What is a Theory in science?- Please define.

How did DNA testing prove evolution was not true- I am afraid I must have missed this in my studies??

No, not greater faith than you, just a lot more education

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi Enter "evolution" as your search term. You will find over 120,000 articles on evolution. And this is just in a medical database going back only to 1965. Start reading the abstracts.

Then come back when you are ready to have a serious discussion and not your strawman assertions.

 

[Data]

When we came out with DNA testing it was supposed to prove evolution was true. what it did was the opposite.

Er, It did pretty much prove evolution was true.

Scientists, who arent christians, say that evolution is extremely flawed.

Like the biologists on this board huh? The ones promoting evolution?

Even the christian biologists here beleive in evolution.