How certain is 'science'

Crusadar · Jul 22, 2005

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...cons_molec.html http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociet...d_recommend.htm

---- That is the usual evolutionists' tactic (theistic evolutionist in this case), if you can't defend your own nonsense, bombard the opposition to death with somebody else's nonsense.

The Lady Kate · Jul 22, 2005

Crusadar said:
That is the usual evolutionists' tactic (theistic evolutionist in this case), if you can't defend your own nonsense, bombard the opposition to death with somebody else's nonsense.

You asked for evidence.
You were given evidence.
You are either too lazy to read the evidence, or too proud to admit the evidence is over your head.

This is the usual creationist tactic: Claim victory where none exists.

Crusadar · Jul 22, 2005

You know the old saying that the proof is in the pudding, why don't you bring some of these evidences - the ones that stand out the most and lets discuss.

rmwilliamsll · Jul 22, 2005

Crusadar said:
You know the old saying that the proof is in the pudding, why don't you bring some of these evidences - the ones that stand out the most and lets discuss.

i will state as i do everytime evidences for evolution occur.
it is not evolution that people really care about it is the distinctiveness of human beings therefore the best evidence is that which shows the continuity of human beings with the great apes.

the extra centrosome and included teleomeres (one group is even in backwards as predicted) in human chromosome 2 showing that it is a fusion of chimp 2p +2p

the presence of the GLO pseudogene in only human beings and chimps.

these are in fact the two pieces of data that moved me from an OEC to TE position 5 or 6 years ago.

there are a lot, but to understand one or two things well is better than shotgunning a whole mess.
.....

The Lady Kate · Jul 22, 2005

Oh, now you want pudding?

Crusadar said:
You know the old saying that the proof is in the pudding, why don't you bring some of these evidences - the ones that stand out the most and lets discuss.

This has already been done...exactly as requested

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...cons_molec.html

http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociet...d_recommend.htm

No dessert until you eat what's been served to you.

Crusadar · Jul 23, 2005

Kate said: Oh, now you want pudding?

No, just a summary of the evidence from the article instead of links, - after all wouldn't want to upset my diet now.

This has already been done...exactly as requested

No, what was provided was a bunch of links defending bunk by the linking to more bunk leads to no where thats why you wont see a single link in any of my posts. I dont have the time like I use to, to chase down and read each and every one of the links and comment on them - as they are probably no different from those I have read in the past.

But of course I will take your word on what each link says if you summarize for me their conclusions and how they arrived at them - if you want me to respond to any of them. Otherwise dont think that by simply giving links it will suffice in defending yours or any one elses position. You need to utilize the sources that you referenced - otherwise I will consider it as nothing more than bunk.

No dessert until you eat what's been served to you.

Like I said I'm on a diet, thank you.

Crusadar · Jul 23, 2005

rmwilliamsll said: i will state as i do everytime evidences for evolution occur.
it is not evolution that people really care about it is the distinctiveness of human beings therefore the best evidence is that which shows the continuity of human beings with the great apes. the extra centrosome and included teleomeres (one group is even in backwards as predicted) in human chromosome 2 showing that it is a fusion of chimp 2p +2p the presence of the GLO pseudogene in only human beings and chimps. these are in fact the two pieces of data that moved me from an OEC to TE position 5 or 6 years ago.

I would say that saying that we are descended of the apes is insulting, not to us, but to the apes!

Lets see if I understand you correctly, by GLO you mean gulonolactone oxidase which is an enzyme that allows the biosynthesis of L-ascorbic acid (otherwise known as vitamin C). And pseudogene a nonfunctional gene. So how does one conclude that since both apes and humans share this non coding gene for making vitamin C - it means that we are related to each other? Did it ever occur to you that it may have been the result of the same designer? So how about sharing why you think this proves beyond doubt that apes and man have a common heritage?

there are a lot, but to understand one or two things well is better than shotgunning a whole mess.

I hope your not talking about the 29+ evidences on the talkorigins site - are you?

LewisWildermuth · Jul 23, 2005

Crusadar said:
Did it ever occur to you that it may have been the result of the same designer? So how about sharing why you think this proves beyond doubt that apes and man have a common heritage?

So God was copy/pasting DNA? Where is the verse to support that? Why would God use broken parts to make us and then call that work very good?

gluadys · Jul 23, 2005

Crusadar said:
Did it ever occur to you that it may have been the result of the same designer?

Why would anyone design a gene which doesn't do the job it is apparently made to do? And do it more than once? And choose the species which will have this gene instead of the functioning one most mammals have, in such a way that it looks as if they were related?

This simply does not square with any competent designer, much less an omniscient one.

Crusadar · Jul 23, 2005

Didn't the "Just how do creationists measure information" thread help? Start deleting the binary code and see how long the script will keep working correctly? Nothing more than a functional gene that has now become nonfunctional.

The Lady Kate · Jul 23, 2005

Crusadar said:
Kate said: Oh, now you want pudding?

No, just a summary of the evidence from the article instead of links, - after all wouldn't want to upset my diet now.

I've noticed that creationists build better strawmen out of "summaries" than actual information. In the meantime, you have exactly what you asked for.

I know it's a shame that 200 years hasn't yet been summed up in a neat copy of Evolution for Dummies, but complicated questions tend to beget complicated answers.

This has already been done...exactly as requested

No, what was provided was a bunch of links defending bunk by the linking to more bunk leads to no where

Having read nothing, you've already decided it's bunk. Okaaaay...

thats why you wont see a single link in any of my posts.

That's not the reason.

I dont have the time like I use to, to chase down and read each and every one of the links and comment on them - as they are probably no different from those I have read in the past.

It's called research...you don't want to do it; you miss out.

But of course I will take your word on what each link says if you summarize for me their conclusions and how they arrived at them - if you want me to respond to any of them. Otherwise dont think that by simply giving links it will suffice in defending yours or any one elses position. You need to utilize the sources that you referenced - otherwise I will consider it as nothing more than bunk.

IOW, You want to read the Cliffs Notes of the Cliffs Notes?

No dessert until you eat what's been served to you.

Like I said I'm on a diet, thank you.

Just be careful not to starve.

gluadys · Jul 23, 2005

Crusadar said:
Didn't the "Just how do creationists measure information" thread help? Start deleting the binary code and see how long the script will keep working correctly? Nothing more than a functional gene that has now become nonfunctional.

So now you are saying the gene was created functional, as in other mammals and mutated into non-functionality?

But why did it mutate in several species in exactly the same way? There are other mammals who also fail to produce Vitamin C, and who also have a mutated GLO pseudogene, but their pseudogene has not mutated in the same way as that in humans and chimps.

So how does random mutation account for the fact that these species in particular show exactly the same mutation just as if it had occurred once and was inherited?

The Lady Kate · Jul 24, 2005

gluadys said:
So now you are saying the gene was created functional, as in other mammals and mutated into non-functionality?

But why did it mutate in several species in exactly the same way? There are other mammals who also fail to produce Vitamin C, and who also have a mutated GLO pseudogene, but their pseudogene has not mutated in the same way as that in humans and chimps.

So how does random mutation account for the fact that these species in particular show exactly the same mutation just as if it had occurred once and was inherited?

TheFalldidit.

invisible trousers · Jul 24, 2005

Crusadar and Micaiah, you guys could really help your cause by showing us some actual proof for creationism.

Micaiah · Jul 24, 2005

I was talking to a Christian bloke recently while on holidays. He basically works as an odd jobs handy man. We go talking about origins. He said to me that as far as he was concerned the best evidence for a Creator was to go out into the bush, pick a flower and study its intricate details for a moment.

That got me thinking. There are two aspects to this question of how certain science can be. One aspect is how well scientific theory actually models reality, and the other aspect is how convincingly it is able to convey that truth to the layman. When it comes to the first point, I don't believe the evidence is anywhere near as convincing as many like to portray. With regard to the second point, sceince has definately failed. To gain some understanding into the theories proposed on origins you need several PHD's. As this thread has demonstrated, there are few that can give a convincing off the cuff explanation to back up their beliefs. The word of scientists is effectively accepted by faith.

I can try to take the yard stick that you use and demonstrate it can be used to arrive at conclusions that support a young earth. But I'd say if you want a genuine conviction that nature was created by the Master Creator, and is not the result of random change and the selective forces of nature, take a walk in the bush or the forest.

random_guy · Jul 24, 2005

So the intelligent designer, in all his infinite wisdom and glory, decided to design humans and chimps with a malfunctioning vitamin C pseudogene that are extremely similar in the same defects. He then goes on to create guinea pigs with a malfunctioning vitamin C pseudogene with defects in different locations than the human and chimp pseudogene.

Did the designer forget where to to place the defects or is he a trickster, making it seem that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?

random_guy · Jul 24, 2005

Micaiah said:
That got me thinking. There are two aspects to this question of how certain science can be. One aspect is how well scientific theory actually models reality, and the other aspect is how convincingly it is able to convey that truth to the layman. When it comes to the first point, I don't believe the evidence is anywhere near as convincing as many like to portray.

I find the evidence overwhealming. Maybe it's because I've taken a lot of science and math courses and have a huge respect for the science and the work of scientists. In regards to an old Earth, there are so many independent lines of evidence that all point towards an old Earth. I can't really think of anything that points to a young Earth.

With regard to the second point, sceince has definately failed. To gain some understanding into the theories proposed on origins you need several PHD's. As this thread has demonstrated, there are few that can give a convincing off the cuff explanation to back up their beliefs. The word of scientists is effectively accepted by faith.

Personally, I don't think this is true. However, it might be because I was raised being immersed by science. I learned english from watching nature shows on PBS.

Origin theories basically say that early life started out as more than a self replicating chemical reaction. In fact, one can view life as nothing more than that.

I think it's not so much science's fault, but more the people's fault for not having an open mind. For example, ICR and AIG requires their people to throw out any evidence not supporting their views. How can people accept science if they aren't allowed to view all the evidence that exists?

gluadys · Jul 24, 2005

Micaiah said:
To gain some understanding into the theories proposed on origins you need several PHD's. As this thread has demonstrated, there are few that can give a convincing off the cuff explanation to back up their beliefs. The word of scientists is effectively accepted by faith.

No. It may take a PhD to do the research and test the theory, but not to understand it. I detested science when I was a teenager and avoided studying it. So I have no formal education in science beyond my freshman year in university.

But there are good popularizations of scientific findings, and I don't find the theory difficult to understand. Nor do I find it difficult to follow how the theory and the evidence fit together.

From listening to creationists, I think the big problem is that they have developed a view of evolution which does not fit with the evidence. The evidence does not speak to them powerfully because it is not the evidence which fits their understanding of evolution (or even of science).

So the key is to divest oneself of inadequate caricatures of evolution and learn what scientists are talking about when they speak of evolution.

Much the same goes for geology and other sciences related to evolution and the age of the earth and the universe.

notto · Jul 24, 2005

Micaiah said:
To gain some understanding into the theories proposed on origins you need several PHD's. As this thread has demonstrated, there are few that can give a convincing off the cuff explanation to back up their beliefs. The word of scientists is effectively accepted by faith.

Not true at all in my case. I read, read, read. Often times we see people asking for simple, short, off the cuff explanations of things that can't be explained with simple, short, off the cuff explanations. This says nothing about the validity of the science. The word of scientists is accepted because they do a pretty good job of finding things out and the evidence is there for anyone who will take the time to look at and understand. It can't be done in an afternoon or in a short paragraph. It can take years to understand the details, but it is approachable by anyone who has the time.

If I can't explain relativity or nuclear physics to you with off the cuff explanation, does that have any validity on the theory itself? Am I accepting these things on faith even though if we had a week, I could explain the basics to you rather thoroughly or if you took a week, you could easily uncover the evidence that is used to support the theories behind relativity and nuclear physics?

At best we could say that we tenatively accept scientists work because we trust them and the method under which they do their work. This certainly isn't blind 'faith' as they have a good track record and again, the evidence can be reviewed by the layman and other scientists and consensus can be found and supported by evidence.

You might be able to argue that the work of science can be accepted by faith, but you cannot argue that the work of science must be accepted by faith. There is a big difference between the two.

rmwilliamsll · Jul 24, 2005

To gain some understanding into the theories proposed on origins you need several PHD's. As this thread has demonstrated, there are few that can give a convincing off the cuff explanation to back up their beliefs. The word of scientists is effectively accepted by faith.

look carefully at the two very different claims of religion and science in this.

science makes a claim that there exists evidence for these principles. furthermore that if i have the time and ability that i can study and understand them.

but religion makes the claim that i CAN NOT just study. i have to have an experience. access is not public, is not under my control, in not a result of study or anything else i can engage in. God must give me the knowledge. the domain of the two, science and religion are very different, access to (the epistemology) knowledge in each is very different. To confuse the issue by claiming that science requires faith in the same manner as does religion is simply clouding up the issue so as to confuse people into not understanding how radically different the two domains really are.

does science require faith? yes it does. i have to trust that people aren't deceived by Satan when they look at the world, that they aren't lying to me, that there isn't a great conspiracy just around the corner. but you know something, i have to do the same thing in my theology but several orders of magnitude more. enough that they are very different kinds of faith.

but when i look not only at the results of each field, but at the way people get along in science vs the way confusion and discord seem to reign in religion, i realize that i don't want to reintroduce religion's epistemology back into science. nor do i wish to see science's domain enlarged to include the supernatural.
...

How certain is 'science'

Criado de Cristo

The Lady Kate

Guest

Criado de Cristo

avid reader

The Lady Kate

Guest

Criado de Cristo

Criado de Cristo

Senior Veteran

Legend

Criado de Cristo

The Lady Kate

Guest

Legend

The Lady Kate

Guest

~*this post promotes non-nicene christianity*~

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Legend

Legend

avid reader

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

~this post promotes non-nicene christianity~