Evolution - and their take over/destruction of science

[klutedavid]

Axioms are by definition taken to be true within the system in which they are used. They are the basis of such systems, not absolute or universal truths.

Just as there are different geometries depending on the specified axioms, there are also variations of mathematics using different axioms.

Axioms are assumed to be true statements!

I don't think that science would exist as a valid ideology without measurement.

Measurement is a mathematical methodology.

Mathematics stands on the mathematical axioms.

Assumptions and axioms are the beating heart of science.

 

[klutedavid]

I agree with scholars in the paucity of evidence for an historical Jesus.

Do you believe that Jesus was an historical person, who lived and died in Israel?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To make the claim that there existed a singularity, is not a claim that is subject to a scientific test or even to falsification. The claim of the existence of a singularity, is a claim that an entity existed before the natural laws of science even existed. This claim should be rejected by the scientific community. Science is defined as observation, measurement, repeatable experiments, hard evidence supporting a valid theory through objective agreement.

Science cannot progress unless an idea can be tested and is subject to being falsified.

Any claim, theory, hypothesis, that cannot be tested is not in the domain of science.

The Big Bang as a scientific explanation is mere science fiction.

The Big Bang at the initial phase (singularity) is undefined, unbounded, not finite, thus cannot be measured or tested!

From what I hear, most physicists/cosmologists take a 'singularity' just to mean that our physical models break down in that context, not that there really is/was an infinitely small, infinitely dense point there. Opinion seems to be that it will (at least) take a theory of quantum gravity to resolve the issue.

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you believe that Jesus was an historical person, who lived and died in Israel?

Perhaps. It's really not that important to me.

 

[klutedavid]

You are just wrong. A good theory can make predictions about what we might find if it were true. If the predicted elements are found, it strengthens the theory.

What predictions does creationism make in the realm of physical sciences?

I am not always right but never wrong.

The ability of any theory to make predictions is not a proof of anything.

I can develop a theory based on observable weather patterns, this does not mean the theory would be valid. Even though in fifty percent of predictive cases the theory was valid.
More often than not the evidence, the tests, theory, the predictions, are designed to specifically support a theory. Funding is the bedrock of scientific investigation, you need to meet the requirements for the funding to proceed. Bias is inbuilt into all scientific research as a result of how the scientific community is employed.

Experiments are purposely designed to match a theory, more often than not.

 

[klutedavid]

Perhaps. It's really not that important to me.

Well your comments earlier regarding the historicity of Jesus are invalid!

 

[klutedavid]

From what I hear, most physicists/cosmologists take a 'singularity' just to mean that our physical models break down in that context, not that there really is/was an infinitely small, infinitely dense point there. Opinion seems to be that it will (at least) take a theory of quantum gravity to resolve the issue.

If the event cannot be observed, measured or is capable of being falsified, then it is not a scientific claim. No one even knows whether a singularity even existed, it is beyond the reach of scientific methodology.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Axioms are assumed to be true statements!

I don't think that science would exist as a valid ideology without measurement.

Measurement is a mathematical methodology.

Mathematics stands on the mathematical axioms.

Assumptions and axioms are the beating heart of science.

None of that contradicts what I said - or vice-versa. For example, the axioms of Euclidean geometry (i.e. flat geometry) are taken to be true for Euclidean geometry - but they are not the same as the axioms of non-Euclidean geometries.

 

[klutedavid]

None of that contradicts what I said - or vice-versa. For example, the axioms of Euclidean geometry (i.e. flat geometry) are taken to be true for Euclidean geometry - but they are not the same as the axioms of non-Euclidean geometries.

Yes most certainly, yet the axioms must be true, otherwise your wasting everyone's time.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well your comments earlier regarding the historicity of Jesus are invalid!

Which ones, specifically?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No one even knows whether a singularity even existed, it is beyond the reach of scientific methodology.

It would be more accurate to say that we don't yet have a scientific explanation for what happens in those contexts.

That doesn't mean it's permanently beyond science, it means our models are currently incomplete or inadequate - but we knew that. Newtonian mechanics works pretty well, but fails to correctly describe some situations; we found a better model (Einsteinian relativity) that supersedes Newtonian mechanics and correctly describes those situations, so we have a scientific explanation for them.

 

[klutedavid]

From what I hear, most physicists/cosmologists take a 'singularity' just to mean that our physical models break down in that context, not that there really is/was an infinitely small, infinitely dense point there. Opinion seems to be that it will (at least) take a theory of quantum gravity to resolve the issue.

Don't use that concept, 'infinity', in our conversations about science. Mathematics is based on finite entities called counting numbers. A number line for example never approaches infinity because a number line, is a defined finite construction. Consider a number line of positive integers, now every integer must have an integer that follows it.

No matter how far along the number line you travel, there is always a finite integer that follows after any integer. We cannot say that the number line of positive integers approaches infinity. That would be defining infinity with some finite positive boundary.

Can we travel along the number line for ever and ever?

Definitely not, that would be associating the finite with the infinite, which would simply be a paradox. Positive integers are always positive integers, anywhere on the number line is only ever a positive integer. A infinite positive integer cannot exist, therefore it cannot be approached. I reject the mathematical model as simply a defined paradox.

 

[klutedavid]

It would be more accurate to say that we don't yet have a scientific explanation for what happens in those contexts.

That doesn't mean it's permanently beyond science, it means our models are currently incomplete or inadequate - but we knew that. Newtonian mechanics works pretty well, but fails to correctly describe some situations; we found a better model (Einsteinian relativity) that supersedes Newtonian mechanics and correctly describes those situations, so we have a scientific explanation for them.

But Einsteins theories are also limited in their application.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes most certainly, yet the axioms must be true, otherwise your wasting everyone's time.

Like I said, they're taken to be true for the system in which they're used. They may not be true in other systems. See Alternative Axiomatic Set Theories.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But Einsteins theories are also limited in their application.

True - that's why a lot of work is going into finding a more encompassing theory.

 

[klutedavid]

Which ones, specifically?

The fact is; there is no contemporary record of either the death or resurrection of a Jesus.
(HitchSlap, post #32)

 

[klutedavid]

True - that's why a lot of work is going into finding a more encompassing theory.

Much ado about nothing.

Science needs to examine the assumptions of their ideology.

Science is attempting to understand space time, even though space time may not lend itself to theoretical definition.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Don't use that concept, 'infinity', in our conversations about science.

Well I did say that they generally don't think that the infinities that appear in the calculations reflect reality, but that the theory underlying calculations is inapplicable in those contexts.

Having said that, I'll use the concept of infinity whenever I think it may be useful.

 

[HitchSlap]

The fact is; there is no contemporary record of either the death or resurrection of a Jesus.
(HitchSlap, post #32)

Yes, that's correct, there are no contemporary records of Jesus or his death.

 

[klutedavid]

Well I did say that they generally don't think that the infinities that appear in the calculations reflect reality, but that the theory underlying calculations is inapplicable in those contexts.

Having said that, I'll use the concept of infinity whenever I think it may be useful.

We do not even know whether an infinity of anything can even exist. It is an intellectual idea not an observable reality. You cannot measure infinity, science should not use the concept.