Did Reptiles Evolve?

[AV1611VET]

That scientists do not follow some precanned set of actions as they go about their business does not mean there isn't a methodological framework within which they work.

Right --- two pages ago it was the Scientific Method --- now it's a "precanned set of actions" --- glad you finally got the point.

 

[PacificPandeist]

A proper and undistorted reading of the Bible delivers my view.... God within must first be touched to see the whole of the plan, evolution included, clearly!!

//// Pacific PanDeist

 

[Aron-Ra]

You dare say something like this even when you quiver in fear just at learning about science?!

Put your Shakespear aside --- neither the knowledge of, nor lack of, science bothers me in the least.

Obviously. But the point is, I offered you an opportunity to learn something that is verifiably true, something with practical, real-world application which you wouldn't have to merely believe, but could actually know without having to rely on faith. You'd really know it, and you'd finally realize how ridiculous all your current arguments are. I feel that what I had shown you so far, you already realized was certainly true. So you panicked; you had to change the subject, had to pull out the old emotional plea smoke screen. Call me a racist, whatever it takes to prevent you from admitting a simple and indesputable truth. Were you concerned about truth at all, you wouldn't have done any of this, but you would still be engaged in my simple and generous challenge to explain evolution to you.

What exactly is fake about the scientific method? And do be specific.

With pleasure:

Originally Posted by amasci.com​

There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.​

The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the "Scientific Method" used by all scientists. Supposedly, if you don't follow the rigidly defined "Scientific Method" listed in K-6 textbooks, then you're not doing science. (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. After all, where's the "experiment" in these?)​

Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them methods of science rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis / experiment / conclusion is one of these, and it's very important in experimental science such as physics and chemistry, but it's certainly not the only method. It would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize any such procedure list. And we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs! If "The Scientific Method" listed in a grade school textbook proves that Astronomy is not a science, then it's the textbook which is wrong, not Astronomy.​

"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." - Sir Peter Medawar​

There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so is it not proper Science if you study stars or classify extinct creatures?​

Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a brand new kind of measurement instrument (e.g. Newton and the reflecting telescope) ...that certainly is "doing science." Humphrey Davy says "Nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument." But where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet if a student invented the very first reflector telescope or the very first AFM, wouldn't such a device be rejected from many school science fairs? After all, it's not an experiment, and the lists called "Scientific Method" say nothing about exploratory observation. Some science teachers would reject the STM as science; calling it 'mere engineering,' yet like the Newtonian reflector, the tunneling microscope is a revolution that opened up an entire new branch of science. Since it's instrument-inventing, not hypothesis-testing, should we exclude it as science? Were the creators of the STM not doing science when they came up with that device? In defining Science, the Nobel prize committee disagrees with the science teachers and science fair judges. The researchers who created the STM won the 1986 Nobel prize in physics. I'd say that if someone wins a Nobel prize in physics, it's a good bet that their work qualifies as "science."​

Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.​

Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:​

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "​

This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet the "Scientific Method" listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with "form a hypothesis." As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.​

Here is "the" scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.​

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.​

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.​

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.​

You said this scientific method was "fake". I asked you why you said that, and your answer is only that there is more than one legitimate method permissible in science other than just "the" scientific method, which your own source still admits is taught as the standard. Well, then that still takes me back to my original question. How is any scientific method "fake"?

And more importantly; seriously, this is what you should be thinking about when you think about the scientific method(s): How else can you be sure you're not deceiving yourself or relying on false assumptions? Emotional reactions, opinions and first impressions, "gut feelings" and fear are the true stuff of prejudice, and consequently faith can be a very deceptive thing. That's one reason why the scientific method was devised. What other method is there that can test your accuracy and winnow fact from falsity, and correct the errors in your perspective? Is there any other way to measureably improve our understanding of anything?

 

[Ondoher]

Right --- two pages ago it was the Scientific Method --- now it's a "precanned set of actions" --- glad you finally got the point.

Having a reading comprehension problem? I'll let you reread everything that was posted. You can reply when you've caught up to what I really said.

 

[Psudopod]

Okay, Psudopod, I'm not going to spend an inordinately long time with you on this, then.

So basically, you're going to sit on a discussion forum, telling people they are wrong, but unless they are a Christian (and probably only your brand odf Chrisitanity), you're not going to bother responding fully?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Oh, before I forget - AV1611, I'd love to introduce you to the lovely village of Catal Hoyük in Turkey, being of special interest to you because it has been dated to about 7500 B.C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catal_hoyuk

 

[Aron-Ra]

Oh, before I forget - AV1611, I'd love to introduce you to the lovely village of Catal Hoyük in Turkey, being of special interest to you because it has been dated to about 7500 B.C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catal_hoyuk

He doesnt care. I could show him many things to prove that human cultures were already ancient 6,000 years ago, and I could certainly show him proof that the surrounding universe has to be billions of years old. He doesn't care. He's already said his fantasy is the only reality he will accept because he believes science is fake. He has refused to learn even the basics of evolution, yet he claims to be refute it just 'cuz he don't wanna believe it -even though he doesn't know what it is.

You know, sanity is often defined as being rational, having the ability to reason logically, and to be reasoned with. But faith can be described as illogical assumptions of irrational beliefs by unreasonable people, and that's what AV1611VET is. He has no rationale, all his arguments are illogical, and he refuses to be reasoned with.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, before I forget - AV1611, I'd love to introduce you to the lovely village of Catal Hoyük in Turkey, being of special interest to you because it has been dated to about 7500 B.C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catal_hoyuk

Ya --- here's the first paragraph:

Çatalhöyük ... was a very large Neolighic and Chalcolithic settlement in southern Anatolia, dating from around 7500 BC for the lowest layers. It is perhaps the largest and most sophisticated Neolithic site yet uncovered.

It appears to me that the dating method used was it's depth in the ground. The same method evidently used to date things in this earth, since it's a common belief that the farther down one goes, the older it gets. I believe that too, but with two modifications:

1. A global flood must be accounted for.
2. Nothing beyond 6000 years.

When scientists ignore a global flood, I don't want to hear anything about what they find in the earth anywhere --- it's meaningless as far as its position.

Another dead giveaway to me in this story was the mention of they finding a female deity, along with a male one.

Most people think monotheism stemmed from polytheism when, in fact, it is the other way around.

Adam and Eve most certainly were monotheists.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Ya --- here's the first paragraph:



It appears to me that the dating method used was it's depth in the ground. The same method evidently used to date things in this earth, since it's a common belief that the farther down one goes, the older it gets. I believe that too, but with two modifications:

1. A global flood must be accounted for.
2. Nothing beyond 6000 years.

When scientists ignore a global flood, I don't want to hear anything about what they find in the earth anywhere --- it's meaningless as far as its position.

Another dead giveaway to me in this story was the mention of they finding a female deity, along with a male one.

Most people think monotheism stemmed from polytheism when, in fact, it is the other way around.

Adam and Eve most certainly were monotheists.

i often think about how presuppositions contain and channel how we think. I believe i'm going to save this posting as the best example of reasoning from a priori high priority presuppositions rather than to let the facts speak to the issues.

if we wish to understand the world we live in, we need to actually let it speak, rather than to dictate what we think it ought to say.

even if science is contaminated by philosophic naturalism, the high regard that science has for the facts and to properly treat the data will yield better results than thoughts like:
but with two modifications:

1. A global flood must be accounted for.
2. Nothing beyond 6000 years.

as a priori presuppositions into which the entire world needs to be crammed.

God created the heaven and the earth and i behooves us to actually pay attention and respect to it, rather than to demand that it meet our assumptions. Listening to God appears to be far better way than to tell Him what He must have done and ignore the things He has given us to understand.

 

[AV1611VET]

i often think about how presuppositions contain and channel how we think. I believe i'm going to save this posting as the best example of reasoning from a priori high priority presuppositions rather than to let the facts speak to the issues.

if we wish to understand the world we live in, we need to actually let it speak, rather than to dictate what we think it ought to say.

even if science is contaminated by philosophic naturalism, the high regard that science has for the facts and to properly treat the data will yield better results than thoughts like:
but with two modifications:

1. A global flood must be accounted for.
2. Nothing beyond 6000 years.

as a priori presuppositions into which the entire world needs to be crammed.

God created the heaven and the earth and i behooves us to actually pay attention and respect to it, rather than to demand that it meet our assumptions. Listening to God appears to be far better way than to tell Him what He must have done and ignore the things He has given us to understand.

Nature (a.k.a. the creature) indeed speaks to us, but it can only tell us so much, since it is in its fallen state. It cannot give us a paradigm of what it was like before the Fall - only afterward.

• [bible]Romans 8:20-22[/bible]

To apply today's criteria to the universe before the Fall is wrong.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Nature (a.k.a. the creature) indeed speaks to us, but it can only tell us so much, since it is in its fallen state. It cannot give us a paradigm of what it was like before the Fall - only afterward.

it is man that is fallen and evil, not the creation. it stills speaks truthfully but we can not hear it right.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

to see the universe as evil or fallen is the old Manichean heresy, a form of dualism. Note that Romans teaches that the universe CLEARLY teaches the divinity of the Creator, but it is man who can not see it. The universe is not evil, it is the heart of mankind where evil resides.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;

Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

the world is cursed as regards to man, not in itself. it is our relationship to the universe, in particular our side of the conversation that is cursed. not the creation.

you are very wrong. the universe continues to speak about God and His ways. it's voice is not lying to us, we are incapable of hearing it rightly. there is no barrier at the Fall to understanding what went before, this is a YECist misreading of the curse and falls into the old trap of dualism.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll say this, Rmwilliamsll, this post 'bout floored me. It was so refreshing to see a post that contained Scripture.

it is man that is fallen and evil, not the creation. it stills speaks truthfully but we can not hear it right.

Not hardly --- it can't --- it can only speak of His deity:

• [bible]Luke 19:40[/bible]

And the universe is corrupt as well:

• [bible]Romans 8:20[/bible]

Footnote on Romans 8:20 --- Defender's Study Bible:

• "Vanity" is equivalent to "futility". Because of sin, the creation was made to operate under a law which specifies a universal process of decay and death. This law of morpholysis is recognized by science as a basic principle pervading the whole universe. It is also called the law of increasing entropy (meaning turning inward) or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Every system in the physical and biological worlds has a tendency to turn inward and feed on itself to maintain its structure and activity, but this simply causes it to run down, disintegrate and die, unless it somehow becomes opened to outside sources of energy, information, food, etc. Even if it does remain an open system, this internal tendency continues to act in opposition to the incoming energy. Since even the latter will eventually be exhausted, the whole creation is thus in bondage to this principle of futility or vanity. But since this law has been imposed by God, He also can remove it, and so there still is "hope".

Here's the next verse:

• [bible]Romans 8:21[/bible]

Footnote on Romans 8:21 --- Defender's Study Bible:

• "Corruption" is equivalent to "decay", and this is yet another way of stating the entropy principle. Everything tends to decay, running down from a created state of organized complexity to one of randomness and disorganized chaos. This law is thus called a "bondage"; the universe is enslaved by it, and there is no natural principle available to supersede it. Such a law is clearly the exact converse of the notion of evolution, which views the universe as gradually organizing itself over long ages by natural processes into its present state of high complexity and activity. The entropy law, which is supported without exception by all observation and scientific study, seems to stipulate that evolution on any significant scale is impossible. It also explains the fact that evolution has never been observed to occur in the present and the fact that there is no evidence it ever occurred in the past.

Here's the next verse:

• [bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

Footnote on Romans 8:22 --- Defender's Study Bible:

• The reference to "the whole creation" indicates that the divine curse extends through the entire created cosmos, not just to the earth. Scientific observation has confirmed this. That is, the law of entropy operates throughout the cosmos. Since it was man's sin that brought God's curse on the ground - the very elements of the created earth, the "dust of the ground" out of which all things were made by God - it may be that his sin had universal repercussions. On the other hand, it may be that Satan's sin, which took place in the angels' domain in the heavens, brought on the curse there.

 

[AV1611VET]

to see the universe as evil or fallen is the old Manichean heresy, a form of dualism.

You're a walking smorgasbord of ancient religions, aren't you? It's too bad you can't separate them in your mind, even for one post.

Note that Romans teaches that the universe CLEARLY teaches the divinity of the Creator, but it is man who can not see it. The universe is not evil, it is the heart of mankind where evil resides.

Trinitarian Theology 101 and Hamartology 101 are two different doctrines.

The universe indeed teaches the Godhead, but it cannot teach Creation (by example, anyway).

 

[Dale]

AV1611, perhaps you should notice that the 6,000 year figure is not in the Bible. It can only be gotten out of the Bible with a great deal of interpretation.

Since Christ never said how old the Earth is, or how long it has been since creation, Christians could just as easily conclude that it isn't important, or that the true age of the Earth (or the universe) is yet to be revealed.

As I said earlier, God is pre-existent from eternity, so I don't see how time got to be so much of a problem.

 

[Dale]

AV1611 in post #62:
"Creation was altered - read Genesis 3."

I have. From my talks with conservative Christians, I gather they have added about ten chapters to Genesis 3. The "curse" given in Genesis 3 is extremely specific: snakes, thorns, childbirth. Nothing else is mentioned. Yet conservative theologians today make it all-encompassing.

Jewish Rabbis have read Genesis 3 for thousands of years and have never gotten Original Sin or a Fall of Man out of it. The only people who see these concepts in Genesis 3 are those who had these ideas drummed into them before they were old enough to read the Bible for themselves.

Take another look. You'll be surprised at what you find.

 

[Dale]

AV1611 in post #64:
"Jesus didn't use Adam as a metaphor, and neither do I. In fact, he was used throughout the Old and New Testaments as a literal person."

You think so? I did a search for Adam on Bible Gateway. What happens after the first six chapters of Genesis? Aside from "sons of Adam," Adam, as a person who lived in the Garden of Eden, is mentioned ONCE in the rest of the OT. Even that verse is in a hypothetical "if" statement.

Job 31:33
If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom:
Job 31:32-34 (in Context) Job 31 (Whole Chapter)


After Genesis 4:1, Eve is not mentioned again until 2 Corinthians.

 

[Dale]

AV1611,
I am disturbed by your rejecting scientific method in post #74.

It occurs to me that Jesus never tried to solve a practical problem with a theological idea, unlike some modern Christians.

You mention how building an instrument is progress, although it does not seem to be part of a hypothesis/testing cycle. I think the hypothesis and testing of same is there although it is less obvious. Galileo was the first to turn a telescope on the heavens. He made observations and formed theories based on what he saw. He saw points of light and theorized that he was seeing hitherto unknown moons of Jupiter. This turned out to be correct, although many other observations have turned out to be misleading, or the thoughts of the observer have turned out to be misleading.

For instance, some of the first scientists to observe sunlight split into a spectrum thought that black lines in the spectrum were natural divisions between the colors, as though placed by God. Today it is hard to imagine a sillier idea. We now know that black lines appear because certain wavelengths are missing because outer electrons of certain elements make quantum jumps which have the effect of absorbing those wavelengths. Simple observation can be misleading, and so there is hypothesis followed by testing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Dale --- nice to meet you

AV1611, perhaps you should notice that the 6,000 year figure is not in the Bible.

Yes --- I have noticed that.

It can only be gotten out of the Bible with a great deal of interpretation.

Incorrect --- the 4000 years mentioned can be easily arrived at by simple calculation.

Since Christ never said how old the Earth is, or how long it has been since creation, Christians could just as easily conclude that it isn't important, or that the true age of the Earth (or the universe) is yet to be revealed.

I'm already on record, many times, stating that I am very versatile when it comes to the age of this earth. If I'm talking to a YEC, his calling this earth only 6000 years old doesn't bother me; if I'm talking to an OEC, his calling this earth 4.55 billion years old doesn't bother me; but insist that this earth has been around for more than 6100 years - that bothers me.

As I said earlier, God is pre-existent from eternity, so I don't see how time got to be so much of a problem.

Time and evolution go together like a hand in a glove. Lack of time defeats evolution hands-down.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611 in post #62:
"Creation was altered - read Genesis 3."

I have. From my talks with conservative Christians, I gather they have added about ten chapters to Genesis 3. The "curse" given in Genesis 3 is extremely specific: snakes, thorns, childbirth. Nothing else is mentioned. Yet conservative theologians today make it all-encompassing.

Then where does entropy come from in a universe that was created "very good"? Are you suggesting that if Adam and Eve hadn't of sinned, we'd still be moving toward entropy?

Jewish Rabbis have read Genesis 3 for thousands of years and have never gotten Original Sin or a Fall of Man out of it.

That's one of the reasons I'm not a Jewish Rabbi.

The only people who see these concepts in Genesis 3 are those who had these ideas drummed into them before they were old enough to read the Bible for themselves.

Then why did Jesus HAVE to be born of a virgin? (Note: I'm not asking why He was born of a virgin; I'm asking why He had to have been born of a virgin.)

Take another look. You'll be surprised at what you find.

Believe me --- I've seen enough.

 

[AV1611VET]

You think so? I did a search for Adam on Bible Gateway. What happens after the first six chapters of Genesis? Aside from "sons of Adam," Adam, as a person who lived in the Garden of Eden, is mentioned ONCE in the rest of the OT. Even that verse is in a hypothetical "if" statement.

You forgot 1 Chronicles 1:1 ---

• [bible]1 Chronicles 1:1[/bible]

A very major fact established within a specific genealogy. The Jews were very adamant about their lineages, since the Law of Jubilee returned their possessions to their original owners, as well as determined who could serve in the Temple and who couldn't.

Job 31:33
If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom:
Job 31:32-34 (in Context) Job 31 (Whole Chapter)

First of all, Job is not HYPOTHETICAL --- Job is POETICAL.

Second of all, this particular passage is literal. Job is saying that if he hides his iniquity (just like Adam did - [but didn't get away with it]), it would have exposed him by turning him into someone who was afraid when confronted on the job (no pun intended). He was submitting proof that since he could look a multitude square in the eyes and pass judgement on one of them, he himself had nothing to hide.

After Genesis 4:1, Eve is not mentioned again until 2 Corinthians.

How many times does something have to be mentioned before it gets accepted as literal? Shouldn't the context decide?