Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[Loudmouth]

Take for example the young woman who fell from a plane, her shoot didn't open and she not only survived the fall, but her fetus did as well. Miracle, defies physical laws of survival.

I didn't know that there were "physical laws of survival"? First I have heard of them. Anyway, it would seem that not everyone who hits the ground without a fully deployed chute ends up in a coffin. So what? Actually, the amniotic sack is a very good shock absorber. It's a bit like being inside a water balloon. I don't see why the fetus could survive if the mother did. In fact, I don't see why the mother surviving is impossible either. Due to terminal speeds in a fluid you can only reach a top speed of around 120 mph, if memory serves. So it doesn't matter if you are jumping four stories or four thousand feet, you will strike the ground at the same speed.

Again, it is unexpected that someone would survive such a fall, but it is not unprecedented. Miracles would be something like an amputee spontaneously regrowing a leg in a matter of microseconds.

So how then would the possiblity of god/gods/God address these "miracles". Well, if god/gods/God don't exist, they are flukes, oddities, unexplained happenings, something to explore, If god/gods/God exists, then we would expect to see such things as a demonstration of the power of a being greater than ourselves. kInd of like an "I'm here" sign. To how much power would be a question to ask the believers of the individual dieties.

I think the sudden regrowing (within microseconds) of an amputated leg would be on the scale needed. It should also be mentioned that the god proposed, the Judeo-Christian God, is capable of anything so no proposal, no matter how preposterous, should be within the capabilities of this deity.

If I turn on the television, I don't have to sit there cranking a knob or acting, in order for it to function.

And we can go to a television factory and watch humans make tv's. We have evidence of the designer outside of the actual design. This is no different than Paley's Watchmaker argument, and it was refuted long ago.

Question: But perhaps more importantly is this: if there is no evidence that can be against a god (a god might not choose to make complexity, for instance, so nothingness would not be evidence against a god either), then no evidence can be considered to be for a god.

Razzle: Not following you here.

When trying to detect something it is just as important to predict what one SHOULD NOT find as it is what one SHOULD find. If every possible outcome is evidence of the actions of a deity then the proposal is useless. We need something to distinguish between the actions of a deity and the non-action of a deity.

How do we determine such, as in the theory of evolution, we predict what we would expect to see and then test that prediction. If the test evidences the prediction then we predict and test again, over time, we become convinced that our theory is right.

And you have missed a very important concept. The ToE makes predictions of things WE SHOULD NOT SEE. For instance, we should not see birds with teats, or bats with feathers. We should see genetic, morphological, and physiological features that fit into a strict nested hierarchy. Anything that does not fit into that nested hierarchy should NOT BE SEEN. This is why the ToE is testable, and why the actions of deities are not.

So what potential and possible phenomena should we NOT see if a god or gods exist?

 

[Tomk80]

What's the difference?

My observation that a certain substance did not cause mutations in my petri dish was an empirical observation. However, it later turned out that my petri dish was polluted. Because of this, my empirical observation was not valid.

Empirical observations are the observations themselves. Their validity is determined by whether the methodology was correct.

So anyone can join if they spend $50,000 for the education and quit their previous career.

Don't know how it is in America. In the Netherlands and scandinavion countries, and in fact in many other European countries, education is either free or heavily subsidized.

But pray tell me, how are you going to be able to study the evidence if you do not have a good education on the subject? How are you going to give valid inferences without a good grasp of logic and study methods?

Seems like a closed group. Not much different from the religious elites.

It is a group closed to those with expertise, yes. Have any better suggestions? But other then religious elites, this closed group is not closed based on relgious preconceptions. It is closed based on level of education and it's standpoints are eventually decided by the evidence. So the parellel with religious elites is only justified to a certain extent. Most of the work is accessible through public or university libraries. You can check it, if you want to put in the time. Sure, that means that not everybody will be able to do it, but do you really expect it to work differently?

 

[Aron-Ra]

But it's only hard to get into because science itself is hard. Science is hard because the easy stuff has already been done. There's just a tremendous amount of buildup that has occurred in all science disciplines today that you just need to do a lot of studying to contribute further.

Tell me about it! I decided more than three years ago that I wanted to be a paleontologist. Well that means an education in geosciences coupled with enough biology to understand the intricacies of anatomy as well as evolutionary development and taxonomy. But look at what it takes just to get a B.Sc.!

Bachelor of Science in Geosciences
Degree Requirements (120 hours)

I. Core Curriculum Requirements1: 49 hours
...A. Communication (6 hours)
......3 hours Communication (RHET 1302)
......3 hours Communication Elective (NATS 4310)2
...B. Social and Behavioral Sciences (15 hours)
......6 hours Government (GOVT 2301 and 2302)
......6 hours American History
......3 hours Social and Behavioral Sciences Elective
...C. Humanities and Fine Arts (6 hours)
......3 hours Fine Arts (ARTS 1301)
......3 hours Humanities (HUMA 1301)
...D. Mathematics and Quantitative Reasoning
(6 hours; 2 hours extra may be counted as free electives)
......Calculus (MATH 2417 and 2419)
...E. Science (9 hours)
......8 hours Chemistry (CHEM 1311, 1111, 1312, 1112)
......8 hour Physics (PHYS 2125, 2126, 2325 and 2326)

1 Curriculum Requirements can be fulfilled by other approved courses from accredited institutions of higher education. The courses listed in parentheses are recommended as the most efficient way to satisfy both Core Curriculum and Major Requirements at U.T. Dallas.

2 A Major requirement that also fulfills a Core Curriculum requirement. If hours are counted in the Core Curriculum, students must complete additional coursework to meet the minimum requirements for graduation. Course selection assistance is available from the undergraduate advisor.

II. Major Requirements: 60 hours
A. Major Preparatory Courses (12 hours beyond Core Curriculum) Prerequisite courses to be completed before enrolling in upper-division GEOS courses
GEOS 1103 Physical Geology Laboratory*
GEOS 1104 History of Earth and Life Laboratory*
GEOS 1303 Physical Geology*
GEOS 1304 History of Earth and Life *
GEOS 2409 Rocks and Minerals*
B. Major Core Courses (39 hours)
GEOS 2406 Geospatial Science and Methods
GEOS 3421 Stratigraphy and Sedimentology
GEOS 3434 Paleobiology
GEOS 3464 Mineralogy and Petrography
GEOS 3470 Structural Geology
GEOS 4320 The Physics and Chemistry of the Solid Earth
GEOS 4322 Earth System
GEOS 4430 Hydrogeology and Aqueous Geochmistry
GEOS 4606 Field Geology (Summer Field Camp)
A mathematics course selected from:
GEOS 5306 Data Analysis for Geoscientists (with permission)
MATH 2418 Linear Algebra
MATH 2451 Multivariable Calculus with Applications
MATH 4332 Scientific Math Computing
Geophysics Option (24 hours)
MATH 2420 Differential Equations with Applications
MATH 2451 Multivariable Calculus with Applications
MATH 4332 Scientific Math Computing
MATH 4362 Partial Differential Equations
PHYS 3311 Theoretical Physics
PHYS 3312 Classical Mechanics
PHYS 3416 Electricity and Magnetism

III. Elective Requirements: 21 hours
A. Advanced Electives (6 hours)
All students are required to take at least six hours of advanced electives outside their major
field of study. These must be either upper-division classes or lower-division classes that
have prerequisites.

B. Free Electives (15 hours)
Both lower- and upper-division courses may count as electives, but students must complete
at least 51 hours of upper-division credit to qualify for graduation. Students are strongly encouraged to take GEOS graduate courses as free electives.

++++++++++++

See what I mean? This is for the Bachelors! Say nothing of the Masters, what you see above are the minimum requirements to be a professional scientist these days!

Its so much easier to be a professional evangelical creationist! You don't have to know anything at all because you can just make it up as you go along. So as long as you can prevent honesty from hindering your performances, then all you'll need to be is a high school drop-out with $100.00 which you can then pretend is tax free!

 

[Chalnoth]

Ah, cool, you actually ended up studying the Lagrangian formulation of classical mechanics? Few people outside of the physics department get that far into physics here at UC Davis. I always thought that the Lagrangian formulation was the coolest thing about undergraduate physics.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Correlate with independent measures of distance that make use of different assumptions, such that together there is very little uncertainty in the different measurements.

Assumptions?

 

[VinceBlaze]

But it's only hard to get into because science itself is hard. Science is hard because the easy stuff has already been done. There's just a tremendous amount of buildup that has occurred in all science disciplines today that you just need to do a lot of studying to contribute further.

And once prospective scientists do make it to graduate school, their way is typically paid, through TA positions and through research positions (though how good the pay is, and how likely you are to be supported through your entire time in graduate school will vary widely from school to school). There are also a number of people that make it into graduate school in a field unrelated to the field they studied for as an undergraduate. It's not easy to do, but it is possible. Therefore, learning to contribute to the scientific community is mostly an investment of time, not money.

Technically, you could just teach yourself all of this stuff, but that is a very hard thing to do. The mentorship that you get in graduate school is absolutely invaluable. You just can't get any idea by working in a vacuum as to quite how careful and skeptical, with respect to your own work, that you have to be to be a respectable scientist.

What I basically hear you saying is that you will not accept evidence from anyone in a discussion unless they are a professional scientist, insofar as only professional scientists know enough to decipher what constitutes evidence in the first place.

 

[VinceBlaze]

But pray tell me, how are you going to be able to study the evidence if you do not have a good education on the subject?

How do you make religious assertions about the existence or non-existence of a god without a good education in religion?

How are you going to give valid inferences without a good grasp of logic and study methods?

Valid to whom?

It is a group closed to those with expertise, yes.

I'm glad that you're at least willing to admit it. That was the point that I was making. The scientific community is a closed group.

Have any better suggestions?

Just be open to non-scientific disciplines. Without placing inapplicable scientific strains on them.

But other then religious elites, this closed group is not closed based on relgious preconceptions.

No, it is closed based upon scientific preconceptions.

It is closed based on level of education

This can be said of any field of education, including the religious field.

and it's standpoints are eventually decided by the evidence.

But what constitutes evidence has not been agreed upon among the different disciplines of knowledge.

 

[Aron-Ra]

But what constitutes evidence has not been agreed upon among the different disciplines of knowledge.

Give me an example of that. Since evidence is a fact or set of set of factual circumstances consistent with a given argument, and being factual means they must be demonstrable or measurable and verifiably accurate by objective standards, then I am unable to guess where the disagreement could be regarding what constitutes a body of evidence.

Allow me to illustrate:

(a) We knew that species go extinct, even fully-marine species.

(b) We also know that many more species have gone extinct in the distant past than exist today.

(c) Even Christian theologians have been commenting for centuries that the geologic column reveals what appear to be successive periods of life on earth.

(d) During the Mesozoic era, there were very few mammals. Prior to Triassic period, there are no dinosaurs. In each lower period tracing back in time, there are forms that don't exist anymore, and which lived in the absence of things that lived since.

(e) In each preceeding period, diversity decreases in certain lines so that lineages seem to look more and more alike as you move backward through time.

(f) Prior to the Devonian, there are no terrestrial vertebrates in the fossil record at all, but there are several semi-aquatic fish that had both lungs and legs, and which seemed able to live out of the water the way walking catfish, lungfish, and snakeheads do today.

All of these are objectively demonstrable, measurable facts and verifiably accurate factual circumstances consistent with biological evolution.

Now you try.

 

[TeddyKGB]

How do you make religious assertions about the existence or non-existence of a god without a good education in religion?

Religions are the ways in which people worship gods. The existence of said gods seem not to be dependent on what people think their gods want.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Give me an example of that.

Okay. Whitley Strieber experienced space aliens in the night as he floated above his bed. A metaphysical argument.

Since evidence is a fact or set of set of factual circumstances consistent with a given argument, and being factual means they must be demonstrable or measurable and verifiably accurate by objective standards, then I am unable to guess where the disagreement could be regarding what constitutes a body of evidence.

Yours is a scientific definition of evidence applicable to the scientific field. Not all fields of knowledge accept your definition.

Allow me to illustrate:

(a) We knew that species go extinct, even fully-marine species.

(b) We also know that many more species have gone extinct in the distant past than exist today.

(c) Even Christian theologians have been commenting for centuries that the geologic column reveals what appear to be successive periods of life on earth.

(d) During the Mesozoic era, there were very few mammals. Prior to Triassic period, there are no dinosaurs. In each lower period tracing back in time, there are forms that don't exist anymore, and which lived in the absence of things that lived since.

(e) In each preceeding period, diversity decreases in certain lines so that lineages seem to look more and more alike as you move backward through time.

(f) Prior to the Devonian, there are no terrestrial vertebrates in the fossil record at all, but there are several semi-aquatic fish that had both lungs and legs, and which seemed able to live out of the water the way walking catfish, lungfish, and snakeheads do today.

All of these are objectively demonstrable, measurable facts and verifiably accurate factual circumstances consistent with biological evolution.

This argument becomes moot when we step outside of scientific fields of knowledge.

Now you try.

Try what? A scientific argument or non-scientific argument?

 

[VinceBlaze]

Religions are the ways in which people worship gods. The existence of said gods seem not to be dependent on what people think their gods want.

How is this statement relevant to the question asked?

 

[TeddyKGB]

How is this statement relevant to the question asked?

How does my explanation of the difference between religion and the existence of god speak to your question about the conjunction between religion and the existence of god?

Is that what you're asking now?

 

[VinceBlaze]

How does my explanation of the difference between religion and the existence of god speak to your question about the conjunction between religion and the existence of god?

Is that what you're asking now?

No, my question is: How is this statement relevant to the question asked?

Please reference post #491 for verification. It will confirm everything.

 

[Chalnoth]

What I basically hear you saying is that you will not accept evidence from anyone in a discussion unless they are a professional scientist, insofar as only professional scientists know enough to decipher what constitutes evidence in the first place.

I have no problem listening to the evidence. But it is rare for that evidence to be convincing to me unless it comes from science. It has happened, of course, where I've been convinced (at least partially) by evidence that did not come from science. But it is rare.

Here is the main issue: the standard model of modern physics includes the models of General Relativity, Quantum Chromodynamics, and Quantum Electrodynamics (I might be using this name wrong, I'm not a high energy physicist, but here I mean the quantum theory that describes the electroweak force). These three theories have been tested in a variety of scenarios and in many independent ways, and have never been shown to be incorrect. But we know that they must be incorrect at some level, because the two quantum theories are completely inconsistent with general relativity.

And we see many lay people attempting to come up with grand unified theories. The problem with that is, how can you possibly have an idea of what a unified theory might consist of if you don't know the current theories are and what their problems are? Sure, you might want to ask yourself if you might be tainted by incorrect ideas if you learn the current ideas, and that knowing all current experiment, you might possibly be better able to see the truth if your mind is not clouded by old ideas that we know are wrong somewhere. Not being fettered by the very specific history through which science has progressed may possibly be better.

The problem is that this is impossible for any human to do. If you want to discard all current theories, you need to go back to the raw experimental data for all experiments, not just their interpretation, consider them as a whole, and try to find patterns. This is just far too difficult a thing to do. Unfortunately, we are, by practical considerations, stuck with the history of science. There is quite simply too much experimental data in support of current theories for anybody to have a hope of contributing much of anything valuable without them having an understanding of current theories.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Okay. Whitley Strieber experienced space aliens in the night as he floated above his bed. A metaphysical argument.

That doesn't count as an argument. An argument is a reason given in proof or rebuttal, a process of reasoning; series of reasons, a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point. Argument is an intellectual process, a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Since evidence is a fact or set of set of factual circumstances consistent with a given argument, and being factual means they must be demonstrable or measurable and verifiably accurate by objective standards, then I am unable to guess where the disagreement could be regarding what constitutes a body of evidence.

Yours is a scientific definition of evidence applicable to the scientific field. Not all fields of knowledge accept your definition.

Yes they do. You're confusing fields of knowledge with those of belief. The difference is that knowledge can be tested. If we can't measure your accuracy to some degree, then you can still believe it, but you can't claim to know it. For example, since you say you're using another definition for the word, 'evidence', what is it? And where can we look it up to verify whether you're using it correctly?

This argument becomes moot when we step outside of scientific fields of knowledge.

...And into the realm of fancy where no one really knows anything, but pretends to anyway; Where everything is just an equal opinion, and anyone's blind speculation may be declared "truth" in a loud voice full of conviction no matter how wrong he is. But in this forum, we're discussing the real world, and in that world, you only know what you can show.

"'Cuz its magic, that's why" -is not an explanation of anything. Its an excuse which is only used by those who have no answers because they ask no questions, and would rather assume their conclusions literally without a thought of hesitation.

 

[Tomk80]

How do you make religious assertions about the existence or non-existence of a god without a good education in religion?

By going with the evidence.

Valid to whom?

Logically valid. There is no "to whom" in that. Logic has rules that you have to follow. These hold true regardless of the person.

I'm glad that you're at least willing to admit it. That was the point that I was making. The scientific community is a closed group.

Only in as much as it is hard to get into. It is not a closed group based on religious beliefs, ethnicity etc. There is a big difference between those two.

Just be open to non-scientific disciplines. Without placing inapplicable scientific strains on them.

How do you imagine that to work? Please give me a specific example.

No, it is closed based upon scientific preconceptions.

Explain.

This can be said of any field of education, including the religious field.

Sure, but there as one big difference, which is empirical evidence.

But what constitutes evidence has not been agreed upon among the different disciplines of knowledge.

What constitutes empirical evidence has.

 

[VinceBlaze]

I have no problem listening to the evidence. But it is rare for that evidence to be convincing to me unless it comes from science. It has happened, of course, where I've been convinced (at least partially) by evidence that did not come from science. But it is rare.

I believe that you're being too narrow.

Here is the main issue: the standard model of modern physics includes the models of General Relativity, Quantum Chromodynamics, and Quantum Electrodynamics (I might be using this name wrong, I'm not a high energy physicist, but here I mean the quantum theory that describes the electroweak force). These three theories have been tested in a variety of scenarios and in many independent ways, and have never been shown to be incorrect. But we know that they must be incorrect at some level, because the two quantum theories are completely inconsistent with general relativity.

I suggest that the real inconsistencies exist within the brain itself, at its current level of functional development within the species. The brain is inherently dualistic in it's comprehensive capacities, until it should further evolve.

 

[VinceBlaze]

That doesn't count as an argument. An argument is a reason given in proof or rebuttal, a process of reasoning; series of reasons, a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point. Argument is an intellectual process, a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

That wasn't the whole argument. I wasn't going to spell the whole thing out. I'm suggesting that there are metaphysical arguments of a non-scientific nature. I was not attempting to present one.

Yes they do. You're confusing fields of knowledge with those of belief. The difference is that knowledge can be tested. If we can't measure your accuracy to some degree, then you can still believe it, but you can't claim to know it.

You're straining other fields of knowledge through scientific measures. Not all knowledge is scientifically measurable. This is merely a scientific presupposition that you hold. And people do indeed claim to know metaphysical things. So apparently they can claim to know, despite your protests. And they will continue to do so.

For example, since you say you're using another definition for the word, 'evidence', what is it?

I had referenced your definition as opposed to my own. Or perhaps you were using more of a 'formula' instead?

...And into the realm of fancy where no one really knows anything, but pretends to anyway; Where everything is just an equal opinion, and anyone's blind speculation may be declared "truth" in a loud voice full of conviction no matter how wrong he is.

Tough luck on that one.

But in this forum, we're discussing the real world, and in that world, you only know what you can show.

Not everyone shares your perspective, nor have they agreed with you on what constitutes the 'real world' as you put it.

"'Cuz its magic, that's why"-is not an explanation of anything.

And where has this assertion been made?

 

[VinceBlaze]

By going with the evidence.

Metaphysical evidences or scientific?

Logic has rules that you have to follow.

No, it does not. Rather, scientists have crafted a ruleset that they choose to follow. There is a difference.

These hold true regardless of the person.

But not regardless of the circumstance.

Only in as much as it is hard to get into. It is not a closed group based on religious beliefs, ethnicity etc. There is a big difference between those two.

The end result is the same. No need to exercise bias due to differentiations in basis.

How do you imagine that to work? Please give me a specific example.

Simply read a metaphysical book. And don't ask scientific questions of it. Easy.

Explain.

For example, you have a scientific presupposition that the world is physical/material. The universe also.

Sure, but there as one big difference, which is empirical evidence.

Religion does not rely on or require material empirical evidence.

What constitutes empirical evidence has.

No, it has not.

 

[Chalnoth]

I believe that you're being too narrow.

You can delude yourself all you want that others aren't listening to you because they are narrow-minded. I have changed my mind many times from arguments and evidence posted by others.