Questions to creationists

[JohnSerew]

Hello christians,

Lets start by saying I am not intending to make a point. I only want you to come to conclusions for yourself. I am just really curious about your views on this.

My question is pretty complicated. For me to formulate that is. So I hope I won't confuse you. Here I go!

What do you feel that evidence is and what it is for? More importantly, how do you think that evidence contributes to finding out what is true('scientific fact') and what is not true. In fact, what do you think that 'scientific fact' means and to what degree evidence can prove something to be true at all?

I am really curious about your answer.

 

[Dizredux]

Hello christians,

Lets start by saying I am not intending to make a point. I only want you to come to conclusions for yourself. I am just really curious about your views on this.

My question is pretty complicated. For me to formulate that is. So I hope I won't confuse you. Here I go!

What do you feel that evidence is and what it is for? More importantly, how do you think that evidence contributes to finding out what is true('scientific fact') and what is not true.

I am not sure how to answer those questions so let me tackle these.

In fact, what do you think that 'scientific fact' means

In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.[/quote] Stephen Jay Gould

and to what degree evidence can prove something to be true at all?

Science does not "prove". All science is provisional in that it has to be left open for new data to be discovered which could change the picture. What science can do is to "falsify", to prove untrue or it can support a hypothesis but it can never prove.

I am really curious about your answer.

And I am curious about your response.

Welcome to the forum.

Dizredux

 

[JohnSerew]

In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'

And I am curious about your response.

Welcome to the forum.

Dizredux

Thanks for your respons Dizredux,

Before replying I would have to request you to elaborate on that sentence. I am not a native english speaker so I have trouble to understand those words In specific the 'perverse to withhold provisional assent' part. When I read perverse I can only think about the other perverse if you know what I mean.

I am awaiting your reply

 

[lesliedellow]

Thanks for your respons Dizredux,

Before replying I would have to request you to elaborate on that sentence. I am not a native english speaker so I have trouble to understand those words In specific the 'perverse to withhold provisional assent' part. When I read perverse I can only think about the other perverse if you know what I mean.

I am awaiting your reply

Perverse means unreasonable.

 

[JohnSerew]

So what he meant to say in a less specific way is that scientific fact are those believes that are accepted in such a way that it would be unreasonable to believe the contrary?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hello christians,

Hello, John -- welcme to CF!

Lets start by saying I am not intending to make a point. I only want you to come to conclusions for yourself. I am just really curious about your views on this.

I'll do my best.

I'm not scientific minded, but I'll give your questions a shot anyway.

What do you feel that evidence is and what it is for?

Evidence is the sum total of facts used to support an hypothesis.

More importantly, how do you think that evidence contributes to finding out what is true('scientific fact') and what is not true.

Evidence is the strongest ingredient in the scientific method. The part of the scientific method that can be quantified and qualified (seen, felt, smelled, tasted, heard, numbered, sorted and stored). It is the tangible part that is subjected to direct scrutiny.

In fact, what do you think that 'scientific fact' means and to what degree evidence can prove something to be true at all?

A scientific fact is a fact that qualifies as acceptable to be included in the scientific method. It can also be an ingredient that makes a formula work consistently, such as the constant G in the formula for gravity (Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup]). Without it, the formula would fail.

I am really curious about your answer.

Well, you got it! I don't know how accurate it was, but ask me these same questions tomorrow, and I'll probably say something completely different!

 

[Dizredux]

Thanks for your respons Dizredux,

Before replying I would have to request you to elaborate on that sentence. I am not a native english speaker so I have trouble to understand those words In specific the 'perverse to withhold provisional assent' part. When I read perverse I can only think about the other perverse if you know what I mean.

I am awaiting your reply

Sure, in this case 'perverse" would mean something like stubbornly, deliberately and obstinately wrong.

Next, all science is, as I said, provisional in nature so when we agree something is a "fact", to disagree with that would be very wrong with the condition that it could change if new knowledge becomes available the would change the picture.

Or as one professor famously said "What I tell you is absolutely true until further notice."

Hope this helps a little. English has so many words with so many different meanings that it can be very confusing even to native speakers.


Dizredux

 

[JohnSerew]

Hello, John -- welcme to CF!
...
got it! I don't know how accurate it was, but ask me these same questions tomorrow, and I'll probably say something completely different!

I thank you for your answer and your warm welcome.
I think you answered my questions very well!

 

[Dizredux]

So what he meant to say in a less specific way is that scientific fact are those believes that are accepted in such a way that it would be unreasonable to believe the contrary?

Adding onto my post, you have it pretty much right with the caution that this is always subject to change with new evidence.

Dizredux

 

[AV1611VET]

I thank you for your answer and your warm welcome.
I think you answered my questions very well!

Thank you, but others may disagree with my answers.

If they do, go with what they say over what I say, as I'm no authority.

These guys are pretty knowledgeable.

 

[JohnSerew]

Adding onto my post, you have it pretty much right with the caution that this is always subject to change with new evidence.

Dizredux

Oh I see. And yes, I understand that addition. Well, I think you answered my questions very well. To add on the first question, what I meant to say I think is in what way 'evidence' helps to find our what is 'scientific fact', in your definition those concepts of course. With that I am looking for the machanism. The answer could be as specific as it is clear to you.

 

[JohnSerew]

Thank you, but others may disagree with my answers.

If they do, go with what they say over what I say, as I'm no authority.

These guys are pretty knowledgeable.

I understant. Well, I will try not to convey my opinion on your viewpoint. I think that might influence your freedom in answering my question. I want to be as unbiased as possible. In this thread, its not about right or wrong. Its all about visions. I feel that including any religious or non religious opinion of myself defeats the purpose of asking this question in the first place as I would already disregard answers when they are different from mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

... as I would already disregard answers when they are different from mine.

I do that all the time!

 

[JohnSerew]

I do that all the time!

May I ask you the rather unfortionate question of: Why do you think you do that? And do you think that is a bad or a good thing?

 

[AV1611VET]

May I ask you the rather unfortionate question of: Why do you think you do that?

For one thing, people's answers do not include God, the Bible, or the miraculous; so I don't feel obligated to subordinate my beliefs to their way of thinking.

If I did, I would be denying even basic doctrine right now, such as Christ's deity and virgin birth, sin nature, etc.

And do you think that is a bad or a good thing?

I think that is a good thing.

The Bible says, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

Romans 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

 

[Old Ned]

Hello, John -- welcme to CF!

I'll do my best.

I'm not scientific minded, but I'll give your questions a shot anyway.

Evidence is the sum total of facts used to support an hypothesis.

Evidence is the strongest ingredient in the scientific method. The part of the scientific method that can be quantified and qualified (seen, felt, smelled, tasted, heard, numbered, sorted and stored). It is the tangible part that is subjected to direct scrutiny.

A scientific fact is a fact that qualifies as acceptable to be included in the scientific method. It can also be an ingredient that makes a formula work consistently, such as the constant G in the formula for gravity (Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup]). Without it, the formula would fail.

Well, you got it! I don't know how accurate it was, but ask me these same questions tomorrow, and I'll probably say something completely different!

Cracking me up again Av
You demonstrate a somewhat decent understanding of these things, albeit a little twisted in places.
Yet you are still willing to assert that Science is wrong for the most part... once again, this is why I respect you, while I think you're nuts , at least you stand by your beliefs without (for the most part) changing your arguments to suit..

@OP... Yeah good luck lol and Welcome to the Forums

 

[AV1611VET]

Cracking me up again Av
You demonstrate a somewhat decent understanding of these things, albeit a little twisted in places.
Yet you are still willing to assert that Science is wrong for the most part... once again, this is why I respect you, while I think you're nuts , at least you stand by your beliefs without (for the most part) changing your arguments to suit..

@OP... Yeah good luck lol and Welcome to the Forums

Thank you, Ned!

 

[lesliedellow]

So what he meant to say in a less specific way is that scientific fact are those believes that are accepted in such a way that it would be unreasonable to believe the contrary?

He meant that scientific theories cannot be 100% certain. But evidence can build up until there is enough for any reasonable person to accept it. But, even after that has happened, it still possible for data to come along to disprove the theory. If that happened, it would be unreasonable continue believing the theory.

 

[JohnSerew]

I thank you for your answer to my question. I must say, I find it very interesting to be hearing such honest and clear answers. I have to agree with Old Ned, you tend to be very clear in your answers.

 

[Dizredux]

Oh I see. And yes, I understand that addition. Well, I think you answered my questions very well. To add on the first question, what I meant to say I think is in what way 'evidence' helps to find our what is 'scientific fact', in your definition those concepts of course. With that I am looking for the machanism. The answer could be as specific as it is clear to you.

Very interesting question so let me take a shot.

Evidence is what we work with, what we can see, what we can detect. Evidence is the basic building block to understanding the natural world.

As to the mechanism, it is the scientific method. Scientific method is simply a logical tool that helps us make sense of what we see. I am not going to get into the specifics of scientific method as there are a lot of web sites that do a much better job than I ever could.

So to recap a little, look at the scientific method as the best tool that we have available for understanding the natural world in which we live. It does not do proof nor absolutes. Like a hammer it is a wonderful tool for what it is designed to do but it is not the tool to use for everything.

It cannot address the supernatural, it cannot deal with thing for which we have no evidence and it can explain how but not why. It has its limits as a mechanism but it does the job that it is designed to do far far better than anything else we have found.

Just my thoughts, take them for what they are and nothing more.

Dizredux