Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions

[klutedavid]

There are many terms when used in context with scientific investigation that have a completely different meaning and context of that of the general layman's perspective. A lay understanding of the term belief would be base mostly, if not completely, on faith. Conversely, when a scientists utilizes the term belief it is based on empirical evidence and experience. That is things that are physically testable and shown to produce repeatable results. For example: "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow", or "when I drop the ball I believe it will fall to the ground", or "when I add a 98% solution of H2SO4 to a beaker of water I believe it will produce a rapid reaction producing much heat".

Hello Rick.

You may very well believe that when you drop a ball, it will fall to the ground.
Though my understanding of the relationship between the ball and the ground,
is different to yours. I see the earth being attracted to the ball, the earth is moving
towards the ball.

You believe the sun will rise tomorrow, I do not believe this. I see the earth's
rotation making the sun appear to rise, though it is not rising.

Just having some fun Rick.

A question for you given your scientific background.

How do you define the term infinity, this term is very widely used in
mathematics and many disciplines of science?

 

[RickG]

...empiricism has a specific definition, empiricism is a belief
system....

Empirical is, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. I think you are dwelling on a 17th and 18th century concept empiricism, ignoring that when science says 'empirical evidence' it is not referring to that outdated idea.

Nevertheless, what does any of that have to do with the topic of this thread?

 

[RickG]

How do you define the term infinity, this term is very widely used in mathematics and many disciplines of science?

Something without bounds.

 

[klutedavid]

Empirical is, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. I think you are dwelling on a 17th and 18th century concept empiricism, ignoring that when science says 'empirical evidence' it is not referring to that outdated idea.

Nevertheless, what does any of that have to do with the topic of this thread?

Hello Rick.

Your initial post was concerned with evidence, and the different conclusions based
on that evidence. Before any discussion can proceed, we need to establish a common
set of agreed definitions. For example, the definition for empiricism needs to be established
without any disagreement. Otherwise we are reading from a different page, Rick.

 

[klutedavid]

Something without bounds.

Hello Rick.

Your definition is a very crude definition of infinity.

If we consider all real numbers between two designated points on a number line.
Are there an infinite number of real numbers between these two points (integers)?

Some folk would see the two integers as boundaries, hence the number of real
numbers cannot be infinite.

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

Your initial post was concerned with evidence, and the different conclusions based
on that evidence. Before any discussion can proceed, we need to establish a common
set of agreed definitions. For example, the definition for empiricism needs to be established
without any disagreement. Otherwise we are reading from a different page, Rick.

It doesn't matter how you define it. I am asking for anyone to show the same evidence used in a mainstream research paper being used in a creation science research paper to obtain a different conclusion. In other words, this is the data in the mainstream paper, here is the same data in the creation science paper. How do they get different results? The answer is simple, they don't use the same data.

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

Your definition is a very crude definition of infinity.

If we consider all real numbers between two designated points on a number line.
Are there an infinite number of real numbers between these two points (integers)?

Some folk would see the two integers as boundaries, hence the number of real
numbers cannot be infinite.

I never dealt with infinities in my profession, thus I could care less about them.

 

[sfs]

Hello sfs.

Thanks for the response, you said.

That is not correct, empiricism has a specific definition, empiricism is a belief
system.

I am being very specific sfs, in regards to the accepted, dictionary definition of
empiricism.

Trying to understand a complex philosophical viewpoint with a long history just from a dictionary definition is a bad idea. Try something a little more detailed...

"Empiricism is the theory that experience rather than reason is the source of knowledge, and in this sense it is opposed to rationalism. This general thesis, however, can receive different emphases and refinements; hence, those philosophers who have been labeled empiricists are united only in their general tendency and may differ in various ways." That's an accepted, encyclopedia definition of empiricism. I suggest reading up on the subject. You might want to start with the section "Various meanings of empiricism" here.

I am not labeling people sfs, if you believe in science then you are an empiricist.

"Empiricist" is a label. In the same sentence in which you say you're not labeling people, you attempt to apply a label to me. I told you in what sense I am an empiricist (based on my limited knowledge of the philosophical idea) and in what sense I'm not. I told you to ask me questions if you wanted me to explain my views more. You haven't done so.

 

[sfs]

Your initial post was concerned with evidence, and the different conclusions based
on that evidence. Before any discussion can proceed, we need to establish a common
set of agreed definitions. For example, the definition for empiricism needs to be established
without any disagreement. Otherwise we are reading from a different page, Rick.

No, we really don't need to define empiricism (which wasn't even mentioned in the OP). What we need is some examples of creationists and scientists using the same evidence but coming to different conclusions. If there turn out to be ambiguities about what people mean by "evidence", then we can hash them out when they arise. Without any examples, though, there's nothing to discuss -- just the suspicion that creationists don't actually use the same evidence as scientists.

So, do you have any examples?

 

[Commander]

One of the common claims by the "Creation Science" community is that they use the same evidence as "Mainstream Science", but come to different conclusions with that same evidence.

Now retired, I was a member of the mainstream scientific community for some 30 years, only becoming aware of the plethora of "creation science" literature with respect to the earth sciences about 10 years ago. To say the least, this drew my attention with incredible disbelief in what they were presenting. Not only did I have a problem with what they presented, but the way in which it was presented. Thus, the topic of this thread "Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions". In the open forums of the Physical and Life Sciences of the Christian Forums where atheists are also welcome to participate I had a similar thread. However here, where only Christians may participate, I hope this will present a different perspective from with sides.

What I am asking specifically to be discussed in this thread is for participants to present examples of "Same Evidence - Opposite Conclusions" from the creation science literature. Also keep in mind that I would like to focus on examples related to the Earth Sciences, not the biological sciences. Thank you.

Hey buddy, I was flipping through some websites that listed the problems within geology and found this since you would like to focus on Earth Science, not biological science. "A geologist, however, is not necessarily tied up to one or the other alternative. His subject covers the whole history of the earth in time. At the beginning it allies itself with astronomy and physics and celestial chemistry. At the end it runs into human history, and is mixed up with archæology and anthropology. Throughout its whole course it has to deal with questions of meteorology, geography, and biology. In short, there is no department of physical or biological science with which geology is not allied, or at least on which the geologist may not presume to trespass. " www.nature.com/nature/journal/v28/n723/abs/028449a0.html

I mean since you have a masters in science, I find it a little odd that you would limit your questions. I also found these 49 problems within geoscience: http://mappingignorance.org/2014/01/17/open-questions-in-geoscience/

You can always change your mind, and come to the knowledge of the truth that "In the beginning God created", brother.

Here is a question for you, how does geology explain "A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum.This term is typically applied to "fossil forests" of upright fossil tree trunks and stumps that have been found worldwide." You be the judge as to the most logical interpretation... slow accumulation over thousands of years or... rapid burial during a massive world wide flood." How long does it take to form rock. Pay attention to the picture....And have a blessed day.

 

[klutedavid]

I never dealt with infinities in my profession, thus I could care less about them.

Hello Rick.

Thanks for the reply.

Not interested in the concept of infinity, fair enough.

How about uniformitarianism?

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

Thanks for the reply.

Not interested in the concept of infinity, fair enough.

How about uniformitarianism?

I am not asking for anyone to show something right or wrong. I am asking for anyone to provide an example where the creation science literature shows that they use the same evidence as mainstreams science but come to a different conclusion with that same data.

 

[RickG]

I mean since you have a masters in science, I find it a little odd that you would limit your questions.

Not just science, rather Physical Earth Science; therefore, Geology, Oceanography, and Climatology.

Here is a question for you, how does geology explain "A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum.This term is typically applied to "fossil forests" of upright fossil tree trunks and stumps that have been found worldwide." You be the judge as to the most logical interpretation... slow accumulation over thousands of years or... rapid burial during a massive world wide flood." How long does it take to form rock. Pay attention to the picture....And have a blessed day.

As a matter of fact, I was in the field a few weeks ago taking pictures of the very process occurring as it happens. BTW, the type of fossil you are describing is "In Situ". Polystrate is not a geologic term, rather a term coined by the creation science community.

However, I believe you misunderstand the topic and mode of discussion for this thread. It is not to show a geologic process right or wrong. It is about the creation science community claiming to use the same evidence as mainstream science but coming to a different conclusion. What you need to show is a creation science article that uses the same information, data, and research that mainstream science used and come to a different conclusion with that "same evidence". Now, do you understand what I am asking for in this thread?

 

[klutedavid]

I am not asking for anyone to show something right or wrong. I am asking for anyone to provide an example where the creation science literature shows that they use the same evidence as mainstreams science but come to a different conclusion with that same data.

Hello Rick.

The origin of the universe would be an outstanding example of different interpretations
of the available evidence.

Creation science would claim the Infinite One created this finite realm (universe)

Secular science would claim an undefined origin (a singularity) before the universe
began.

The physical evidence of the generation of the universe is absent in each case.
We may only refer to evidence that occurs after the generation of the universe.

Just giving this thread a prod.

 

[Speedwell]

Hello Rick.

The origin of the universe would be an outstanding example of different interpretations
of the available evidence.

Creation science would claim the Infinite One created this finite realm (universe)

Secular science would claim an undefined origin (a singularity) before the universe
began.

The physical evidence of the generation of the universe is absent in each case.
We may only refer to evidence that occurs after the generation of the universe.

Just giving this thread a prod.

Creation science claims a whole lot more: that the universe was created 6000 years ago, to start with.

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

The origin of the universe would be an outstanding example of different interpretations
of the available evidence.

Creation science would claim the Infinite One created this finite realm (universe)

Secular science would claim an undefined origin (a singularity) before the universe
began.

The physical evidence of the generation of the universe is absent in each case.
We may only refer to evidence that occurs after the generation of the universe.

Just giving this thread a prod.

You still don't understand. Creation science says it uses the same evidence that mainstream science uses. I don't see creation science using the same evidence. I see them ignoring the evidence. How do they get a different outcome with the same evidence?

 

[klutedavid]

Creation science claims a whole lot more: that the universe was created 6000 years ago, to start with.

Hello Speedwell.

Both creation science and secular science have different schools of
thought on such matters. I do not maintain that any definitive date
regarding the origin of the universe is possible.

 

[klutedavid]

You still don't understand. Creation science says it uses the same evidence that mainstream science uses. I don't see creation science using the same evidence. I see them ignoring the evidence. How do they get a different outcome with the same evidence?

Hello Rick.

If you could supply this evidence Rick, then we can check the evidence
for uniformity to both perspectives.

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

If you could supply this evidence Rick, then we can check the evidence
for uniformity to both perspectives.

That is exactly what I am saying. Where is the same evidence? Source a claim about the age of the universe by creation science and show me where they use the same evidence as mainstream science to arrive at a different conclusion. All I ever see is opinions and unsupported claims with no evidence, much less the same evidence that mainstream science uses.

 

[klutedavid]

That is exactly what I am saying. Where is the same evidence? Source a claim about the age of the universe by creation science and show me where they use the same evidence as mainstream science to arrive at a different conclusion. All I ever see is opinions and unsupported claims with no evidence, much less the same evidence that mainstream science uses.

Hello Rick.

When I examine secular science and the origin of the universe, I witness
chaos and confusion. No evidence for even the existence of a singularity. No
explanation as to how the singularity even formed in the first instance. All
undefined, no evidence, mysticism in the extreme.

They will state that at the moment of the singularity existence, physical
forces did not exist. Hence no evidence whatsoever?