Early Man

dnich163 · Feb 13, 2003

Today at 03:04 PM lucaspa said this in Post #142

1 + 2 = 2 is a mathematical statement. Within the system of mathematics or other logical systems, there are statements that can be "proven" to be true.  However, Godel showed that in any logical system, there are some statements that are taken to be true but cannot be proven to be true within the system.

In other words you are saying that 1 + 1 =2 is true. This is surely a proof.

That a rock falls up doesn't make the theory of gravity "unproven", rather it falsifies it. That is, it shows the theory -- as stated -- is wrong.  Now, what you call "a new facet of gravity" is modifying the theory; changing the statements.

With regard to the gravity issue, are you saying that gravity does not exist?

I am not so sure that what you state is correct. It is one of the areas of science and philosphy that is under discussion in that is everything real or are we imagining this existence.

This puts everything up for grabs, but not if we accept what we see and experience with our senses.

If I see a hot coal that appears to be hot because it glows and is in the fire, I should say that when I touch it and feel pain that this is proof that the coal is hot at that time.

If we change the conditions and wait till the cola is not in the fire and the fire has cooled down, then the proof that the coal is hot does not apply.

 

But this is more to do with reason than science.

 

David

lucaspa · Feb 13, 2003

Today at 10:57 AM MartinM said this in Post #145

Perhaps equally important is the fact that the flat Earth theory could ever be asserted at all. That such a theory could be tenable rules out a great number of possible shapes. The Earth was believed to be flat precisely because it very nearly is flat. Thus even a wrong theory such as this threw out a large number of other possibilities. And while it was wrong, it took a relatively small refinement to correct it. The same holds for all theories - so while evolution may well be 'wrong' in some sense, the replacement would be a better theory of evolution.

"The Earth was believed to be flat precisely because it very nearly is flat"

You didn't really mean this, did you, Martin? The earth is nowhere near flat. It is an oblate spheroid.

Wrong theories don't throw out other possibilities. How can they? They are wrong.  How can something wrong forbid something that is correct?  Rather, good theories do forbid, and the more a theory forbids the better it is (Popper), but that only applies if the theory is valid.

MartinM · Feb 13, 2003

Today at 06:11 PM lucaspa said this in Post #157 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=650988#post650988)

I'm simply following the logical and testable consequences of your statements. 

The logical consequence of the fact that my criteria do not eliminate the possibility of a deity is that I do not eliminate the possibility of a deity. You combined that statement with your own premise, namely that I 'try to come up with a criteria to eliminate the existence of deity' and conclude from that that I am unaware of an imagined contradiction in my position.

I'm sorry if you take the results as insulting. 

Oh, ignore that. That was just rhetoric

You started out asserting the failure of Logical Positivism and then asserted as true the central claim of Logical Positivism.  I can't help it if your statements are inconsistent. 

The rejection of a premise does not invalidate the conclusion. Example -

All cats are human
George Bush is a cat
George Bush is human

That the premises are false does not invalidate the conclusion - indeed, the conclusion may be derived from a different set of (true) premises. So too for my statement. So let's leave positivism aside and concentrate on the statement I made -

>>only the material, defined as that which may in principle be observed, directly or indirectly, may be meaningfully asserted to exist<<

Now, I have yet to see another coherent definition of 'existence'. To be meaningful, any definition of existence must allow us to determine what exists and what does not. So, in order to claim that something which cannot be observed, either directly or indirectly, can meaningfully be asserted to exist, one must provide a definition of 'existence' which allows us to distinguish something which exists but cannot be observed from something which simply does not exist. Are you aware of such a definition?

It did occur to me that your statement did allow the possibility of deity because you (unlike Logical Positivism) had included indirect effects of deity.  Logical Positivism didn't include indirect effects but only observation.  That atoms were asserted to exist but could not be (directly) observed was another fallacy of Logical Positivism.  Therefore, the way you worded your criteria did allow not only the possibility of deity, but may also have provided the "proof" of deity by admitting indirect effects

Agreed, so far. The existence of a deity could, in principle, be proven.

Now if you want to deny the existence of deity, you are going to have to attack the accuracy of any observation of indirect effects attributed to deity. That puts you in the unenviable position (shared by creationists) of having to deny data

And, yet again, I do not deny the existene of a deity. I simply don't believe in one.

What I am saying is that atheism has to find a way to eliminate deity without the use of scientific falsification.  Because science has no data that will falsify the existence of deity

Those atheists who wish to state as fact 'there is no God' are in the position you describe, yes. I am not one of them. I find their position to be as untenable as theism.

You are confusing your personal position with the general idea of atheism.  It could be that your position is not athiesm

Since the general idea of atheism is defined in multiple contradictory ways, that is a difficult statement to make, to say the least.

Let's go back to basics, Martin.  The basic question is:  Does a deity(ies) exist?  There are 3 possible answers:
1. I believe deity exists.  This is theism, deism, polytheism.
2. I believe a deity does not exist. This is atheism.
3. I don't know whether a deity exists or not.  This is agnosticism

Now, the "lack of belief" stated "I do not believe a deity exists" is the same as saying "I believe a deity does not exist."  Although Jerry wants to deny the semantic equivalence, I can't find a way around it and all Jerry's attempts have failed

Now it's my turn to take your statements to their logical conclusion.

Premise: Agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive
Premise: Those who lack a belief in God are atheists
Conclusion: Agnostics do not lack a belief in God

Now, tell me - what is the difference between not lacking a belief in God and believing in God?

To be continued...

MartinM · Feb 13, 2003

"Insufficient information" to whom?  You?  Orahlicon?  Lewis Wildermuth?  Those two consider the evidence to be sufficient.  So there is obviously a judgement call on your part on what consists of "sufficient information". However, I don't want to argue you out of your personal beliefs, but to point out to you that you are already making a judgement call and not a statement of fact.  Your premise is open to doubt

Quite so. I never disputed that. I do not believe in God, thus I am atheist. I do not know whether or not there is a God, thus I am agnostic. The problem is that both agnosticism and atheism have multiple contradictory definitions. It seems we are working to different definitions.

Now, why would the "rational default position" be that there is no deity?  Why is that any more rational than that there is one?  Let's take this outside of religion and see if we use this criteria elsewhere.  In science, there is insufficient information to determine whether there are tachyons.  Is the rational default position that there are none?

Yes. The default position on all existential claims should be negative.

Why? Why should tachyons not exist any more than they do exist? 

No reason. But we are not dealing with the question 'do tachyons exist?' but rather the question 'in the absence of evidence, what is the default position one should take on the existence of tachyons?'. Two very different questions. The first question (indeed, all questions of the form 'does X exist?') is recursively enumerable - it can, in principle, be decided that the answer is 'yes', but never that the answer is 'no'. To prove empirically the nonexistence of tachyons one must exhaustively search all of existence. Not possible. Thus if our default position is 'tachyons exist', we will never conclude that they do not. If our default position is 'we do not know if tachyons exist' we may conclude that they do, but never that they don't. If our default position is that they do not exist, we may conclude that they do. In the mean time, our position, and thus our model of reality, is indistinguishable from reality.

If we applied this criteria to the 4 hypotheses on the origin of the universe that don't involve deity, we would rationally conclude, by your criteria, that those hypotheses are false.  But if we do that, then we are left with nothing to counter the hypothesis that deity created the universe.  So using your criteria, we would have to be theists

Only if you inconsistently apply my criteria to four out of the five hypotheses. How did you decide to apply it to those four but not the fifth?

Since your criteria is not used elsewhere

Ah, but it is. Science operates by casting null hypotheses and attempting to falsify them. To show that tachyons exist, assume they don't and falsify that assumption. So too with God.

Now, if you really choose atheism on pragmatism, then you are immediately confronted by questions concerning the physical universe.  And these questions make your "pragmatic assumption" untenable.  In particular, when looking at the material causes discovered by science, we are confronted by the question: are these the only causes?  Is there also another cause? 

To which I reply 'in the absence of evidence for other causes, I make the pragmatic assumption that there is none'. Where is the problem?

If you agree with Butler, you are a theist.  If you look at Bulter's statement and say "I don't know whether the natural requires an intelligent agent to render it so" you are agnostic.  If, however, you disagree with Butler and say that natural causes do not have a supernatural component, then you have just made a positive staement of faith. 

This is just a restatement of your previous options. My position is that in order to have a rational basis to answer the question 'is there a God?' one must first answer the question 'is it possible to determine whether or not there is a God?'. If the answer to the second question is 'yes', then the first question is valid. If the answer to the second question is 'no', then the first question must be replaced by the question 'in the absence of evidence for or against the existence of God, what should be the default position?'.

The next question is: why isn't an intelligent entity required for the natural?  One answer is: there is no intelligent agent or supernatural, at which poiint you are an atheist.  Or you could say, an intelligent agent or the supernatural just doesn't affect anything "natural". 

Alternatively one may answer 'in the absence of evidence for any intelligent agent or supernatural, therefore I make the pragmatic assumption that there is none'.

Continued...

MartinM · Feb 13, 2003

A good reply. However, it relies on the premise that rationality is compartmentalized. 

Consider -

Premise: Darwin holds an irrational belief
Premise: Darwin presents an argument for evolution
Premise: Rationality is compartmentalized

What conclusion may we draw from this? We may not conclude that Darwin's argument is valid. We still need to evaluate Darwin's argument on its own merits. So, let's do that first -

Premise: Darwin holds an irrational belief
Premise: Darwin presents an argument for evolution
Premise: Darwin's argument is invalid

Now what is our conclusion? Again, not much. Let's try the other possibility -

Premise: Darwin holds an irrational belief
Premise: Darwin presents an argument for evolution
Premise: Darwin's argument is valid

This leads us to -

Conclusion: Rationality is compartmentalized

To summarise, making the assumption that rationality is compartmentalized carries with it no benefit - we still have to study the argument. But reversing the process may lead us to the conclusion that rationality is compartmentalized.

Also, I'll throw those questions back at you: would the argument Darwin made be more valid if made by an atheist?  Then you would have known that the individual was rational, wouldn't you?  Hugh Ross makes an argument for the existence of deity based on the Big Bang. Do you consider that argument more or less valid because Ross is a theist?

No, no and no.

You gave no indication that rationality is compartmentalized. If a person is incapable of rational thought in one area, doesn't that call into suspicion his rationality elsewhere?

Suspicion is a subjective concept. Rationality and the validity of logical arguments are not. Arguments should be considered wholly independent of the person who advances them.

DNAUnion certainly thinks so when he rejects all claims by Miller based on Miller's supposed flawed arguments against Behe.  So do atheists when they argue that if one part of the Bible is wrong, then all of it is wrong

<shrug>

They're wrong.

What we also have to consider is that in Origin Darwin used a lot of data as justification of his theory.  If Darwin was not rational, could he rationally and objectively observe?  After all, all data is personal experience, which relies on the person making the observation to be sane (rational).  So, can we rely on Darwin's and Dobzhansky's data supporting evolution?

The data - yes, subject to the usual condition of reproducibility. Whether or not their interpretation of the data is valid can only be determined by analysis of the data. Without this, there can be no logical basis on which to decide.

Why? Science has proved the non-existence of hundreds of entities: aether, devils causing disease, a world-wide Flood, the Loch Ness monster, etc.  Why is deity different? 

To prove that there is no deity is to prove a universal negative. It's the difference between proving that there is no extraterrestrial life anywhere in existence and that there is no extraterrestrial life playing no-limit Texas Hold-em in my basement.

MartinM · Feb 13, 2003

Today at 06:44 PM lucaspa said this in Post #162 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=651076#post651076)

"The Earth was believed to be flat precisely because it very nearly is flat"

You didn't really mean this, did you, Martin? The earth is nowhere near flat. It is an oblate spheroid

With an average curvature of very nearly zero.

Wrong theories don't throw out other possibilities. How can they? They are wrong.  How can something wrong forbid something that is correct? 

Consider that Newtonian mechanics was wrong. And yet any replacement had to agree with it wherever it was succesful. Thus Newtonian mechanics lives on within general relativity (as the low-velocity, low-gravity limit) and quantum mechanics (in the limit as h -> 0)

This should explain it better than I can - http://www.answersinscience.org/RelativityofWrong.htm

lucaspa · Feb 13, 2003

Today at 12:55 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #153

Civilized man is less than 12,000 years old. There still is no accepted scientific theory as to how stone age man "evolved" into a civilized man.

"The domestication of plants and animals usually distinguishes Neolithic culture from earlier Paleolithic or Mesolithic hunting, fishing, and food-gathering cultures. The Mesolithic period in several areas shows a gradual transition from a food-collecting to a food-producing culture. The termination of the Neolithic period is marked by such innovations as the rise of urban civilization or the introduction of metal tools or writing. Again, the criteria vary with each case. The earliest known development of Neolithic culture was in SW Asia between 8000 B.C. and 6000 B.C. There the domestication of plants and animals was probably begun by the Mesolithic Natufian peoples, leading to the establishment of settled villages based on the cultivation of cereals, including wheat, barley, and millet, and the raising of cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs. In the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys, the Neolithic culture of the Middle East developed into the urban civilizations of the Bronze Age by 3500 B.C. Between 6000 B.C. and 2000 B.C. Neolithic culture spread through Europe, the Nile valley (Egypt), the Indus valley (India), and the Huang He valley (N China). The formation of Neolithic cultures throughout the Old World resulted from a combination of local cultural developments with innovations diffused from the Middle East. In SE Asia, a distinct type of Neolithic culture involving rice cultivation developed, perhaps independently, before 2000 B.C. In the New World, the domestication of plants and animals occurred independently of Old World developments. By 1500 B.C., Neolithic cultures based on the cultivation of corn, beans, squash, and other plants were present in Mexico and South America, leading to the rise of the Inca and Aztec civilizations and spreading to other parts of the Americas by the time of European contact. The term <I>Neolithic</I> has also been used in anthropology to designate cultures of more contemporary primitive, independent farming communities."  http://ragz-international.com/stone_age.htm

This can serve as a starting point for you, John, into your search for more details about the transition from hunter-gatherers to civilization.  It wasn't that hard to find.  You can do it if you just put in a little effort.

Jerry Smith · Feb 13, 2003

Since my last few posts haven't been answered yet, I'm going to take a moment to remark about them. In them, I have been defending many forms of both weak and strong atheism equally from the accusation that they are based on faith and have deviated significantly from my original argument. Going back to what Lucas marks as the turning point in this conversation for a moment, I would like to continue my original line of thinking. He correctly points out that the weak atheist must believe that material causes act alone. That is correct, and as I have shown, it is a deduction by reason from the non-faith disbelief in the existence of supernatural forces. However, it could also be a valid deduction from a stronger disbelief in the existence of supernatural forces (i.e. one that causes the strong atheist to assert that there are demonstrably no gods).

Now, without reasonable support, either of these positions would indeed be a faith, and with it neither of them is a faith. The only difference where it concerns weak vs strong atheism, is how the statement is held: i.e., as a private belief, or one that is advocated as a postive assertion. In other words, the weak atheist is less confident in the conclusion, because his disbelief is subject to error. He doesn't believe God is falsified; he merely distrusts the hypothesis of God because it lacks empirical support and cannot be tested empirically to scientific standards. Being less confident of the conclusion, he does not assert it to be a true statement and attempt to defend it. He merely holds it as a reasonable deduction, subject to error, and unfortunately not subject to the kind of testing which would yield greater confidence or weaken his confidence in it. Since his reason is based on a disbelief in a hypothesis, and he is aware that his disbelief, however reasonable, could very well be mistaken, he is a quiet atheist who professes not to believe instead of a vocal atheist who claims to have convincing evidence.

The important point here is that his disbelief is reasonable, is held cautiously with a mind to the possibility that it is erroneous, and cannot be appropriately restated as a positive belief about the universe. It is always only a belief about a model of the universe.

The weak atheist has a model of the universe, and in it there is no hypothesis of God. His model does not include a hypothesis of God that is considered to be falsified. A weak atheist never speaks of the impossibility of God - only the unbelievability of God. In other words, the weak atheist is unwilling to insert the hypothesis of God into his model of the universe in any form: supported (unless it should someday have what he perceives to be adequate support), pending investigation (because he knows of no means of investigation), or falsified (because he does not feel the data have falsified the generic God hypothesis).

JohnR7 · Feb 13, 2003

Today at 01:30 PM lucaspa said this in Post #159  For instance, the world-wide Flood

What do you type, about 500 words per min?

The Bible does not say there was a "world-wide" Flood.

Genesis 6:7
    And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

The Hebrew word here for "earth" is "adamah". This is the land of Eden that was given to Adam. Although the corruption has spead to the whole earth "erets". God said He was going to deal with that corruption. But as far as I know, the flood only covered the area refered to in the Hebrew as "adamah" or the land of Eden. There is no trace of it left today. 

Since a lot of these scientists were ministers, John, like Sedgwick and Buckland, why would they want to do that?

Sedgwich pretty well settles the whole Darwin issue anyways: 

What Sedgwick objected to was the apparent amoral and materialist nature of Darwin's proposed mechanism, natural selection, which he thought degrading to humanity's spiritual aspirations. His letter of November 24 went on to state:

<BLOCKQUOTE>This view of nature you have stated admirably; tho' admitted by all naturalists & denied by no one of common sense. We all admit development as a fact of history; but how came it about? Here, in language, & still more in logic, we are point blank at issue-- There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro' final cause, link material to moral. . . You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it--& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/sedgwick.html

So according to Sedgwick, Darwins Folly if left unchecked would sink mankind to a unprecedented level of degradation.

Put what off on theologians? And who told scientists to take a hike? Be specific, John. 

If you remember we were talking about the Gap theory.

"Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), a notable Scottish theologian and first moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, was perhaps the man most responsible for the gap theory."

The problem is, very little can be found about what he wrote or said on the gap theory. Also, he did not seem to even know much about science. Yet here he was being called upon to defend creation theory.

My pastor is the same today. He does not have time or the interest to study all the nonsense that man has to say about anything. He spends his time with God. Why waste time reading what students of science are publishing in the attempt to advance their career and increase their paycheck?

People haven't been laughing at science; they have been delighted with it. They have seen the beneficial effects on their lives. They may not understand quantum mechanics, but they can appreciate the the new televisions and radios and the new chemicals made by quantum chronodynamics.

Woah, back up Charlie. We were having a conversation about natural science. Just because one branch of the tree is diseased does not mean the whole tree is defunct. Although just as one rotten apple can ruin a whole bushel, so Darwin's folly has had an effect on the whole tree of science. No one is suggesting we cut the whole tree down and throw it in the fire. But there is a blight that does need to be delt with.

I know 3 medical students just in the last 3 years that came to medical school creationists and left evolutionists. And know 4 more that became evolutionists in college.

Imagine that, secular humanism making converts. What well they think of next?

 

What you should be panicking over, John, is that two of the 3  also left as atheists.  When faced by a religion that insisted that they believe creationism or believe what they could see for themselves, they chose what they could see for themselves.  Since their denominations insisted that they couldn't be Christian and evolutionists, they left Christianity. 

Want to know why atheism is gaining in this country, John?  Creationism.  [/B]

That is where you lack understanding. It is not creationism, that is just a sympton. The problem is the dead, harlot, apostate, worldly church that has fallen to far away from God. It could be that there are pastors, and evengelists who are going to stand before God guilty of having lead people astray. They are going to be right up there with the men of science who have fallen into the secular humanism trap and got caught up into Darwin's folly.

The true Church is going to get the job done. As my four year old son says: Can do, Will do, Job done! We are going to take the truth to the whole world. Everyone has to decide if they are going to go with God or not. Then the world is about to be shaken like it has never been shaken before and Science is not going to have a cure or answers. But that will be followed by a golden age of 1000 years with advances we can only dream of.

Isaiah 65:20
        "No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days,
        Or an old man who does not live out his days;
        For the youth will die at the age of one hundred
        And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred
        Shall be thought accursed.

Today I was at the Radio Shack store and a women was looking at the tape players. I made a comment that those tape players could go obsolute none to soon for me. They most likely will replace a tape with a memory unit that does not have to be any bigger than a molecule. Great advances are coming, a grand new age is on the horizon. But there is going to be a shaking first like this world has never seen, nor will ever see again.

Smilin · Feb 13, 2003

2nd February 2003 at 11:07 AM Noddingdog said this in Post #5 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=625002#post625002)

Evolution is not a theory! It's a hypothesis if anything. It does not have substantial supportive evidence. Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.

okay... I'm convinced...

Wait, now I'm confused on a few issues...

Explain:
Selective reduction (antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria), Selective Reproduction (new breeds of horses, dogs, cats, etc, etc), New Species from hybridization (got any landscaping in your yard?)

And what about all those different varieties of fruits and vegetabls come from? Let's choose just one to make it simple, where did all those apple varieties come from anyhow?

And how do you explain the racial diversification of man?

I'm confused now.... :help:

Smilin · Feb 13, 2003

2nd February 2003 at 12:32 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #19 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=625095#post625095)

Creation is a religious concept, not a scientific one.

Personally, I have no problem with creation being discussed in the classroom, as long as it's in the appropriate one (i.e. a theology class). Science class, however, should stick to science.

I totally agree Pete...
And ALL creation stories should get equal time....

Smilin · Feb 13, 2003

2nd February 2003 at 12:59 PM Noddingdog said this in Post #25 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=625128#post625128)

OK, here are my thoughts.
Did I say that if the evidence disagrees with what I believe then the technology that dated the evidence is wrong? I merely said that inconsistencies suggest that certain dating methods are flawed.

Which dating methods are you referring to? What is flawed about them?
Specifics?

lucaspa · Feb 13, 2003

Today at 01:38 PM dnich163 said this in Post #161

Today at 03:04 PM lucaspa said this in Post #142

[lucaspa]1 + 2 = 2 is a mathematical statement. Within the system of mathematics or other logical systems, there are statements that can be "proven" to be true.  However, Godel showed that in any logical system, there are some statements that are taken to be true but cannot be proven to be true within the system.

In other words you are saying that 1 + 1 =2 is true. This is surely a proof.

Click to expand...

It's a logical proof, within a logical system, not a proof of a scientific theory. Actually, I'm not sure that it is a proof, because I'm not sure if 1 + 1 =2 is not one of the Godel statements of mathematics.

[lucaspa] That a rock falls up doesn't make the theory of gravity "unproven", rather it falsifies it. That is, it shows the theory -- as stated -- is wrong.  Now, what you call "a new facet of gravity" is modifying the theory; changing the statements.

With regard to the gravity issue, are you saying that gravity does not exist?

No. I'm saying the theory is falsified.  Theories are collections of statements.  They are meant to represent physical reality.  What happens in science is that you falsify the statements -- show the statements to be wrong.  This doesn't change objective reality; it only refers to the statements about objective reality. Do you understand the difference?  That isn't meant to be condescending or insulting, just an honest question whether you follow the argument. 

It is one of the areas of science and philosphy that is under discussion in that is everything real or are we imagining this existence.

I'm not going there.  We are talking about our theories about existence.  Scientific theories cannot, strictly speaking, be proved.  You can't prove anything by deductive logic.  You can falsify definitively, but you can't prove.   

If I see a hot coal that appears to be hot because it glows and is in the fire, I should say that when I touch it and feel pain that this is proof that the coal is hot at that time.

This is a great way to demonstrate the hypothetico-deductive method of science.  So let's take it on:

Observation: a coal is in the fire and it glows.

Hypothesis: the coal is hot.

Deduction: Now, assume that the hypothesis is true.  If the hypothesis is true then what can you deduce? You did one: a hot coal would burn your flesh.

Observational consequence:  Touching the hot coal would cause pain as the burn triggers your pain receptors with tissue damage. 

Experiment: touch the coal.

Conclusion: your hypothesis is supported.  However, have you proved that the coal is hot?  Nope, because there are other ways your pain receptors could be triggered: extreme cold, sharp edges, etc.  What you have to do is falsify all those alternative hypotheses.  Now, what you have done is unconsciously do that falsification: relying on the theory that fires are not cold and the observation that the coal does not have any sharp edges to cut you.  After you have shown the alternative hypotheses to be false, then the hypothesis that the coal is hot is the only hypothesis left standing.  So, have you now proved that the coal is hot?  Unfortunately, no.  Because it is possible that there is another hypothesis to explain your pain that you haven't thought of.  In this case, I could hypothesize that the coal was either very acid or very basic and that is how you got burned.

Now, I will be the first to admit that we often say that our hypotheses are proved, even in our scientific journals. But that is sloppy language and is really shorthand for "We have falsified all the alternative hypotheses we can think of"

But this is more to do with reason than science.

David, it has everything to do with science because science uses the reasoning of deductive logic.  Now, why do we do this?  There are two general types of logic: inductive and deductive.  Inductive is the type of logic that extrapolates from known observations to generalities:  the sun rose today and yesterday, therefore the sun will rise tommorrow.  Unfortunately, a guy named David Hume showed in the late 1700s that it is invalid to ever extrapolate from specifics to generalities.  Yes, I know that we do so in our everyday lives, but it is still invalid.  So, how do we make our conclusions broader than our observations?  We have to use deductive logic.  And that is what I outlined above. I can take a few tests like you describe and then make the theory that all coals that glow in fires are hot.  I can legitimately make my conclusion broader than the 3 or 4 tests of coals in fires.

With me so far?  Again, all I am giving you is standard philosophy of science. Perhaps your public library has The Arch of Knowledge by Oldroyd. If not,there are other intro philosophy of science books that will tell you the same thing. 

The price paid for making conclusions broader than our observations is that we can't prove by deductive logic.  Therefore the only absolute statements in science are the negative ones; the hypotheses that are falsified.

Science is tentative about our theories.  What we can say, however, is that after a theory is tested beyond a certain point, that we can accept the theory as provisionally true, and then use it for future ideas, which then become new tests of the theory.

Let's take gravity.  The attraction of two masses (gravity) has so much support that we provisionally accept it as true.  Chandrashakar then used gravity to realize that, if a star was large enough mass and then collapsed, it would form a mass with gravity so extreme that not even light could escape.  Thus was born the hypothesis of black holes.  This hypothesis has its own deductions and observational consequences.  We have used these to find black holes. The existence of black holes, in turn, provides even more support for the theory of gravity.

I know this contradicts the view of science you probably learned in school, but it is the correct one and shows that our science education is seriously flawed.  Not on the facts and theories we teach, but in the very nature of science and how it is done.

JohnR7 · Feb 13, 2003

Today at 03:35 PM lucaspa said this in Post #167  In the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys, the Neolithic culture of the Middle East developed into the urban civilizations of the Bronze Age by 3500 B.C.

Now isn't that interesting, that just happens to be the location of the Eden we read about in the Bible. Also the date just happens to line up with the Bible.

This can serve as a starting point for you, John, into your search for more details about the transition from hunter-gatherers to civilization.  It wasn't that hard to find.  You can do it if you just put in a little effort.

"It wasn't hard to find". There is no problem with putting out a little effort. The problem is having to sort through all the nonsense to get to something that is worthwhile and lines up with the Bible.

But thanks, I was wanting to study up on this some more.

Smilin · Feb 13, 2003

Today at 04:09 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #174 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=651397#post651397)

Now isn't that interesting, that just happens to be the location of the Eden we read about in the Bible. Also the date just happens to line up with the Bible.

What dates in the Bible? There are none.

MartinM · Feb 13, 2003

Today at 09:07 PM lucaspa said this in Post #173 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=651392#post651392)

Actually, I'm not sure that it is a proof, because I'm not sure if 1 + 1 =2 is not one of the Godel statements of mathematics

Don't think so - it can be proven directly from Peano's axioms.

lucaspa · Feb 13, 2003

Today at 03:52 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #169

The Bible does not say there was a "world-wide" Flood.

Genesis 6:7
    And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them[/I].

Genesis 7:19 "It became so deep it covered the highest mountains, it went on until it was about 25 feet above the tops of the mountains."  Genesis

Sedgwich pretty well settles the whole Darwin issue anyways: 

What Sedgwick objected to was the apparent amoral and materialist nature of Darwin's proposed mechanism, natural selection, which he thought degrading to humanity's spiritual aspirations. His letter of November 24 went on to state:

"This view of nature you have stated admirably; tho' admitted by all naturalists & denied by no one of common sense. We all admit development as a fact of history"

Which means evolution. Sedgwick accepted evolution -- common descent -- and admitted that creationism -- formation of each species in their present form -- was falsified.  Thank you, John, for so admirably supporting my position and destroying your own.

Now, look at Sedgwick further: "There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro' final cause, link material to moral. . . You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it."

First, Darwin never said that natural selection was a final cause. In fact, he specifically denied this and said that natural selection was a secondary cause:  "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."  pg. 449. So Sedgwick did indeed mistake Darwin's meaning.

Now, Sedwick's fear of moral decay has nothing to do with the accuracy of evolution by natural selection or the falsity of creationism.  How God created is how God created. Whether we like it that way or not has nothing to do with anything, does it?

If you remember we were talking about the Gap theory.

So what did theologians put back on science?  The Gap Theory?  Nope, since scientists weren't advocating it. 

"Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), a notable Scottish theologian and first moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, was perhaps the man most responsible for the gap theory."

The problem is, very little can be found about what he wrote or said on the gap theory. Also, he did not seem to even know much about science. Yet here he was being called upon to defend creation theory.

So what specifically did Chalmers put back on scientists?

Actually, there is a very good site on the web about Thomas Chalmers, with a lot of his writings.  Chalmers seems to insert his Gap between the two parts of Genesis 1:1:

"Should the phenomena compel us to assign a greater antiquity to the globe than to that work of days detailed in the book of Genesis, there is still one way of saving the credit of the literal history. The first creation of the earth and the heavens may have formed no part of that work. This took place at the beginning, and is described in the first verse of Genesis. It is not said when this beginning was. We know the general impression to be, that it was on the earlier part of the first day, and that the first act of creation formed part of the same days work with the formation of light. We ask our readers to turn to that chapter, and to read the first five verses of it. Is there any forcing in the supposition, that the first verse describes the primary act of creation, and leaves us at liberty to place it as far back as we may; that the first half of the second verse describes the state of the earth (which may already have existed for ages, and been the theatre of geological revolutions) at the point of time anterior to the detailed operations of this chapter; and that the motion of the spirit of God, described in the second clause of the second verse, was the commencement of these operations? In this case the creation of the light may have been the great and leading event of the first day; and Moses may be supposed to give us not a history of the first formation of things, but of the formation of the present system; and as we have already proved the necessity of direct exercises of creative power to keep up the generations of living creatures; so Moses may, for any thing we know, be giving us the full history of the last great interposition, and be describing the successive steps by which the mischiefs of the last catastrophe were repaired." http://www.newble.co.uk/chalmers/tract2.html  It's the opposite of your gap theory, where the "gap" occurs only 12,000 years ago. Chalmers' gap occurs at the beginning, billions of years ago.

Why waste time reading what students of science are publishing in the attempt to advance their career and increase their paycheck?

Ah, the old ad hominen attack on scientists again. How about all that the creationists at ICR are publishing to advance their career and increase their paychecks?  You don't think Morris and Ham are doing this for free, do you?  And Behe is paid quite handsomely by the Discovery Institute.  Not to mention their royalties (which Dembski admits is a prime motive for him).

Woah, back up Charlie. We were having a conversation about natural science. Just because one branch of the tree is diseased does not mean the whole tree is defunct. Although just as one rotten apple can ruin a whole bushel, so Darwin's folly has had an effect on the whole tree of science. No one is suggesting we cut the whole tree down and throw it in the fire. But there is a blight that does need to be delt with.

You conveniently ignored the benefits of evolution I listed, didn't you? Remember those medical benefits and new treatments for diseases? Also the observation of evolution in action with antibiotic resistance and changes in HIV?  There is also a new treatment for AIDS that is based directly on evolution. The patients that it is working on and saving their lives aren't laughing at evolution.  You can't get close to truth by closing your eyes and burying your head in the sand.

Imagine that, secular humanism making converts. What well they think of next?

I didn't say secular humanism, John. I said atheism.  And you conveniently ignored the problem that poses for theism.  Are you part ostrich?

 That is where you lack understanding. It is not creationism, that is just a sympton.

Creationism is a symptom?  A symptom of the wordly church? 

It could be that there are pastors, and evengelists who are going to stand before God guilty of having lead people astray.

Yes, the pastors and the evangelists who led people astray with creationism are going to have to stand before God, arent' they?  And they are going to be able to explain how creationism drove people away from God?  Ah, to be a fly on the wall for that conversation!

The true Church is going to get the job done. As my four year old son says: Can do, Will do, Job done! We are going to take the truth to the whole world. Everyone has to decide if they are going to go with God or not. Then the world is about to be shaken like it has never been shaken before and Science is not going to have a cure or answers. But that will be followed by a golden age of 1000 years with advances we can only dream of.

What are you going to do to those who don't decide "to go with God or not"?  Sounds like a veiled threat to me. Of course, it would work better if you really did have "the truth", but since you don't, I only worry that you will have to resort to force because people will see that you don't have the truth and are trying to peddle them a set of lies telling them creationism is true,

A cure for what? For your progroms and Inquisitions? No, science hasn't got an answer to fanaticism.  Outside of its domain. And how are you going to to provide all those "advances" when you reject science?  God going to give you the blueprints or zap the drug factories into existence?

Isaiah 65:20
        "No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days,
        Or an old man who does not live out his days;
        For the youth will die at the age of one hundred
        And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred
        Shall be thought accursed.

Shoot, we are doing that now without your aid. In fact, in spite of your attacks on science.

They most likely will replace a tape with a memory unit that does not have to be any bigger than a molecule. Great advances are coming, a grand new age is on the horizon. But there is going to be a shaking first like this world has never seen, nor will ever see again. 

So how are the advances ever going to come when you eliminate all the scientists.  Here you are relying on science to give you the advancements while at the same time saying that science is worthless!! 

Yep, the junk food of these forums.

JohnR7 · Feb 13, 2003

Today at 04:55 PM lucaspa said this in Post #177   Yep, the junk food of these forums.

That does seem to be what your serving: Junk Food. I thought you had something worth while to serve, but I guess that I was wrong.

JohnR7 · Feb 13, 2003

Today at 04:12 PM Smilin said this in Post #175

What dates in the Bible? There are none.

The only dates we have is for the genology of Adam and his decendants. The one constant we have is that Adam was created about 6000 years ago. The Bible calls this the generations.

Smilin · Feb 16, 2003

13th February 2003 at 07:33 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #179 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=651723#post651723)

The only dates we have is for the genology of Adam and his decendants. The one constant we have is that Adam was created about 6000 years ago. The Bible calls this the generations.

Sorry,
The Bible does not date the creation. You may have been falsely taught this, but the Bible does not date ANY event.

Humor me,
Can you provide a timeline for the creation to the current date? (Accounting for observed scientific findings to date as well)

i.e..... how did you arrive at 6000 years... and PLEASE be specific... don't just quote the 'begot's' versus. I want years and time spans.

Convince me... I challenge you.

Early Man

dnich163

Legend

GondolierAce

GondolierAce

GondolierAce

GondolierAce

Legend

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Spirit of the Wolf

Spirit of the Wolf

Spirit of the Wolf

Legend

Well-Known Member

Spirit of the Wolf

GondolierAce

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Spirit of the Wolf

Similar threads