How certain is 'science'

[Crusadar]

rmwilliamsll said: i dont preach, not licensed to do so.

If that is the case then none of us should be here. I'm not asking for a sermon, only your thoughts on the topic of genetic algorithm that you suggested and how valid it is in showing evolution.

but i do teach Sunday School, proudly and gratefully.

That's great, I hope you keep it up - not too many individuals are willing to devote their time to children that are not their own, - I teach a junior high class myself.

it is there that i've discovered that adults learn better on their own,

something that should never stop I hope

so if you want to engage with the science,

science is such a dry subject, how about we just skip it for now

 

[rmwilliamsll]

their time to children that are not their own

i teach adults
http://dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/hap0.html
http://dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/institutes.html

...

 

[TheBear]

I'm interested to hear from Bear. He has mentioned some examples in agriculture that prove slime to scientist evolution beyond a shadow of doubt. I have a passing interest in agriculture. As a teenager I worked on a farm for several years before embarking on studies. Thanks Bear. Lets hear it in your own words.

"prove slime to scientists"????? whaa?

At this point, I think we have a communications problem. Double check and re-read my posts in their entirety.

After re-reading my posts, please clarify your question, (without putting words in my mouth), and I'll be more than happy to reply.

 

[shernren]

I dislike the op science vs. origins science stuff, whether it comes from you or anyone else. Firstly I do think you also blurred the line between science and technology, but that's normal in everyday talk. But most of what's useful to the discussion I can find here:

It is after all the here and now that real science operates as we can empirically observe and test. What guarantees that something is certain or not is if relatively the same results are achieved in every test. Origins science (especially evolution) however cannot be empirically tested, but merely assumed and therefore is pretty much useless, in other words - junk science.

How do you define "here"? How do you define "now"? Of course it's easy to say "gee, fossils were formed long ago without anyone watching so I can say any rubbish I want about them and get away with it because nobody can challenge me!" the way many creation science people do (of course, with more flowery and less baldly quotable language). But think about it. Is what you are observing now, really being observed now?

When I go outside I can see that sunlight is yellow (without directly looking at the Sun, of course) and so I say "Sunlight is yellow". But I'm wrong. Sunlight isn't yellow. Sunlight was yellow 8 minutes ago. That's because the Sun is 8 light-minutes away from Earth and what we see of it now is actually what its condition was 8 minutes ago. Thus, what was an "operational science" statement (Sunlight is yellow) is actually an "origins science" statement (Sunlight was yellow 8 minutes ago) and cannot be empirically tested.

In this same way we can turn any "op science" statement you can make, into an "origins science" statement. You thought you "are observing" a chemical reaction. Actually it finished a few microseconds ago, and what you're seeing is light from the test tube that took a few microseconds to get to your eye, so that the chemical reaction is not in the PRESENT but in the PAST. Being rigorous (and why not?) everything you experience is in the past. That means that any "op science" you think you are conducting is actually "origins science".

Now take this compelling statement from AiG:

Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a ‘time machine’ to travel back into the past to observe).

But now, nothing is open to experimental verification / observation since everything happened in the past. What AiG is really trying to pull is a sort of philosophical relativism: "I can say this about the past, and you can say that, and there's no way of knowing who's right simply by looking at the evidence." Which is a massive embarrassment to me as a thinking Christian because this is the exact same argument which atheists use to "disprove" God:

AiG: I can't observe or experiment with the past, therefore I can say anything about the past and you can't refute me.
Atheist: I can't observe or experiment with God, therefore I can say anything about God (like He doesn't exist, nananana) and you can't refute me.

And by the way, origins science is very important and very useful. For example, why is it that nuclear waste has to be entombed very thoroughly so that it is never disturbed? After all, you creation scientists say that nuclear decay rates can vary widely - if your radiodating markers can decay a few million times faster than normal, why can't our nuclear waste do the same and become harmless in a few years?

 

[shernren]

To TheBear: I think he's pulling a ripoff on Safarti's "goo to you via the zoo" joke. Which, by the way, isn't funny.

 

[Micaiah]

Mr Bear,

I think my point was quite clear. I'm asking for evidence that proves 'slime to scientist' evolution. I take it your examples were in response to the challenge. I'm interested in an explanation that relates your examples to my challenge. You seem to be avoiding my question.

 

[Micaiah]

I dislike the op science vs. origins science stuff, whether it comes from you or anyone else. Firstly I do think you also blurred the line between science and technology, but that's normal in everyday talk. But most of what's useful to the discussion I can find here:



How do you define "here"? How do you define "now"? Of course it's easy to say "gee, fossils were formed long ago without anyone watching so I can say any rubbish I want about them and get away with it because nobody can challenge me!" the way many creation science people do (of course, with more flowery and less baldly quotable language). But think about it. Is what you are observing now, really being observed now?

When I go outside I can see that sunlight is yellow (without directly looking at the Sun, of course) and so I say "Sunlight is yellow". But I'm wrong. Sunlight isn't yellow. Sunlight was yellow 8 minutes ago. That's because the Sun is 8 light-minutes away from Earth and what we see of it now is actually what its condition was 8 minutes ago. Thus, what was an "operational science" statement (Sunlight is yellow) is actually an "origins science" statement (Sunlight was yellow 8 minutes ago) and cannot be empirically tested.

In this same way we can turn any "op science" statement you can make, into an "origins science" statement. You thought you "are observing" a chemical reaction. Actually it finished a few microseconds ago, and what you're seeing is light from the test tube that took a few microseconds to get to your eye, so that the chemical reaction is not in the PRESENT but in the PAST. Being rigorous (and why not?) everything you experience is in the past. That means that any "op science" you think you are conducting is actually "origins science".

Now take this compelling statement from AiG:



But now, nothing is open to experimental verification / observation since everything happened in the past. What AiG is really trying to pull is a sort of philosophical relativism: "I can say this about the past, and you can say that, and there's no way of knowing who's right simply by looking at the evidence." Which is a massive embarrassment to me as a thinking Christian because this is the exact same argument which atheists use to "disprove" God:

AiG: I can't observe or experiment with the past, therefore I can say anything about the past and you can't refute me.
Atheist: I can't observe or experiment with God, therefore I can say anything about God (like He doesn't exist, nananana) and you can't refute me.

And by the way, origins science is very important and very useful. For example, why is it that nuclear waste has to be entombed very thoroughly so that it is never disturbed? After all, you creation scientists say that nuclear decay rates can vary widely - if your radiodating markers can decay a few million times faster than normal, why can't our nuclear waste do the same and become harmless in a few years?

This is one of the most eloquent and commanding pieces of nonsense I've read in a long time. You have all the hallmarks of becoming a great TE internet debater.

 

[shernren]

If it was nonsense then why did you quote it in its entirety? show us how it is nonsense.

 

[AngCath]

When I go outside I can see that sunlight is yellow

i just thought i would point out that sunlight is white and that the sun just appears yellow through our atmosphere.

I also would like to remind you all that ALL science is inductive which besides being weakened in logical arguments also is subject to change over time as new evidence is gathered. The fact is that no theory of origins is scientifically conclusive at this point in time. creationists, both YE and OE, evolutionists both atheistic and theistic, etc. still can not withstand criticism from opponents.
-how this effects origins theology?
when forming a theology of our origins, we should keep the current scientific debate in mind, but it should not be the primary contributor. origins theology, like all other theology should be formed from scripture and church tradition (that passes the test of scripture).

 

[gluadys]

i just thought i would point out that sunlight is white and that the sun just appears yellow through our atmosphere.

I also would like to remind you all that ALL science is inductive which besides being weakened in logical arguments also is subject to change over time as new evidence is gathered. The fact is that no theory of origins is scientifically conclusive at this point in time. creationists, both YE and OE, evolutionists both atheistic and theistic, etc. still can not withstand criticism from opponents.

Science theories cannot be proved conclusively true because of undiscovered evidence. But theories can be proved conclusively false. That is the point that creationists overlook. Creationism, as a scientific hypothesis, has been shown conclusively to be false.

-how this effects origins theology?
when forming a theology of our origins, we should keep the current scientific debate in mind, but it should not be the primary contributor. origins theology, like all other theology should be formed from scripture and church tradition (that passes the test of scripture).

What should origins theology say about theories that have been conclusively demonstrated to be false? How should this affect the way we understand scripture and church tradition?

 

[Micaiah]

If it was nonsense then why did you quote it in its entirety? show us how it is nonsense.

I quoted it in its entirety because it is all nonsense.

I'll put my horns way for now.

 

[Micaiah]

Science theories cannot be proved conclusively true because of undiscovered evidence. But theories can be proved conclusively false. That is the point that creationists overlook. Creationism, as a scientific hypothesis, has been shown conclusively to be false.

ie. it doesn't tie in with your conclusions.

when forming a theology of our origins, we should keep the current scientific debate in mind, but it should not be the primary contributor. origins theology, like all other theology should be formed from scripture and church tradition (that passes the test of scripture).

I think you make a good point. A bit of redundancy in the last sentence. Why not just say that "like all other theology should be formed from scripture".

The science of origins to me is a bit like someone groping in the dark. God alone can turn on the light.

 

[gluadys]

ie. it doesn't tie in with your conclusions.

Nothing to do with my conclusions. Creationism's predictions fail and are contradicted by the evidence. Creationism simply does not describe or explain what we observe in nature.

 

[Micaiah]

Thanks for reminding me Gluadys.

 

[TheBear]

I'm asking for evidence that proves 'slime to scientist' evolution.

I don't have a clue what this means. I honestly don't.

You have quotes around the phrase, 'slime to scientist'. Are you quoting someone? What does that phrase mean? I am honestly and sincerely clueless as to what this means. And, how is this somehow a retort to my earlier remarks, which gave everyday, usable, tangible, and benifitial results such as medicines and agriculture?

 

[TheBear]

You seem to be avoiding my question.

Please.

Was that really necessary? Let's rise above the level of taking cheap shots and jabs. Show some dignity and respect, even with those you may have disagreements.

 

[Micaiah]

I'm refering to the theory that all life evolved from a single celled creature. Start with the example of agriculture.

 

[shernren]

I also would like to remind you all that ALL science is inductive which besides being weakened in logical arguments also is subject to change over time as new evidence is gathered. The fact is that no theory of origins is scientifically conclusive at this point in time. creationists, both YE and OE, evolutionists both atheistic and theistic, etc. still can not withstand criticism from opponents.

What criteria would you have for a theory of origins to be scientifically conclusive? I have a gut feeling we might never find a scientifically conclusive theory of origins by those criteria - now, or ever. Right now my vote goes to the more scientifically conclusive theory. I.e, evolution through common descent.

Which, by the by, I think Micaiah is referring to by "slime to scientist". Though I'm not sure. "Slime to scientist" sounds more like an unhappy conglomeration of abiogenesis and common descent.

 

[TheBear]

I'm refering to the theory that all life evolved from a single celled creature. Start with the example of agriculture.

http://westgroup.icapb.ed.ac.uk/EvolAg.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html

http://www.ku.edu/~eeb/faculty/martinko.html

http://www.egs.uu.se/evbiol/Persons/HansPublications/cons_molec.html

http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/conclusions_and_recommend.htm

Here's a few to get you started.

I'll provide more if you want. Just let me know.

 

[Micaiah]

Yes. I thought I'd made it plain. Please provide an explanation in your own words about the example requested above. I'm interested to see the extent of your undersatanding on such matters.

BTW. What is your academic qualification in science?