Start communicating

MartinM said:

You do realize that you've allowed, for example, EVOLUTION=ABIOGENESIS=A RELIGION, yes?

Click to expand...

LOL

I've always thought the following definitions were correct.

Evolution: Change in gene frequency and alleles over time

Theory of Evolution: The how and implications of evolution. For example, evolution occurs through natural selection and mutation. The ToE states that all life share a common ancestor.

MartinM said:

You do realize that you've allowed, for example, EVOLUTION=ABIOGENESIS=A RELIGION, yes?

Click to expand...

i dont get it

razzelflabben said:

So then philosophy is only part of science when it results in the testable? Is that about it?

Click to expand...

No. The philosophy of science is a set of axioms and/or assumptions - some of which Harcoff has already mentioned - that must be stipulated before the method of science can be undertaken. Fortunately, these axioms/assumptions are extremely powerful; they are foundational to much more than just scientific methdology.

Edx said:

i dont get it

Click to expand...

Think about what happens in formal logic/mathematics when you string negations/negatives together.

razzelflabben said:

So then philosophy is only part of science when it results in the testable? Is that about it?

Click to expand...

Not quite. Philosophy is never a part of science, but it is a sort of basic foundation for science.

As Pete was saying, if a scientist is going to study the sun, she must first assume that the sun exists. Now, logically you cannot determine that anything exists--except perhaps your own mind. That was the philosophical conclusion of Descartes, summed up in the well-known phrase "I think, therefore I am."

But you can't go from "I think, therefore I am." to "I think, therefore the sun exists." You can't show beyond doubt that the sun exists in any form other than something in your imagination. And the same applies to anything else.

So a scientist cannot demonstrate that the sun exists. She has to assume that the sun exists. That's the philosophical part. And that is where the philosophy ends.

All the actual study of the sun and the conclusions drawn about the sun on the basis of the data is science, not philosophy.

razzelflabben said:

Creation
Evolution
The theory of creation
The theory of evolution
Speciation
Kind
Theory
Evidence
Scientific method

That's probably to much to start with so feel free to pick and choose. Thanks in advance for keeping this calm and non judgemental.

Click to expand...

ok, I'll give it a go

Creation: the act of creating; the result of this act. i.e. creation can refer to both the process of creating ("I believe in direct, supernatural creation") and to the product of creating ("Nature is God's creation.")

Evolution: the change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to another due to the combined effect of mutations and natural selection, that leads to variation and may lead to adaptation and speciation.

The theory of creation: given the definition above, we cannot speak of a theory of creation in a scientific sense as it makes no testable predictions about the world or anything in it. If the world was created, it was created to be what it is, and could not be anything else. If it were created differently, it would still be created. So nothing we can observe ever shows that the world is not created.

Now, some would say that creationISM, is a theory, but also that it is a failed or falsified theory. This is because creationism does make statements that can be tested, such as that a global flood occurred less than 5,000 years ago. This assertion is testable, because we can predict what evidence such a flood would leave in the geological record. It is also falsified, not only because such evidence does not exist, but also because things that ought not to exist if a global flood happened, do exist. The contradictions between the predictions and the actual evidence, show that the theory of creationism cannot be correct.

The theory of evolution: the theory of evolution is very broad and covers a lot of topics and makes a lot of predictions. In many ways, it is a theory of mechanisms and patterns. In terms of mechanisms, it predicts that there is a mechanism that causes variation in living populations, and another that selects some variations in a non-random way resulting in the better adaptation of a species to its environment. It further predicts that selected variations are transmitted to the next generation by inheritance, so that over time one will see among species a pattern resembling a genealogical tree. (This is called a phylogeny) Other patterns, such as a geographic patterns of dispersal from the point of origin of a new species, and a stratigraphic pattern of fossil deposition will also be seen. All of this leads to the inference of a universal common ancestor.

Many of these predictions have been observed, and to date, no observation has contradicted the theory.

Speciation: the dividing of a population group into two or more sub-groups such that in each the accumulation of mutations and the changes in the distribution of alleles is different, leading eventually to the inability of the sub-groups to breed successfully with each other. When mating between the two groups no longer occurs, or is usually/always unsuccessful, the groups are classified as different species.


Kind:the ever undefinable kind. As far as I can tell it means "a group of species a creationist agrees could have a common ancestor". The exact boundaries of a kind change from one person to another, and also depend strongly on how well-versed a person is in zoology. The term "kind" is applied to single species, taxonomic families, higher orders of taxa (e.g. class, phylum) and even to whole domains, such as bacteria, depending on the psychological need of the moment.


Theory: basically an explanation for why we observe what we observe. The observations may be of physical objects, processes, mathematical relationships, and may include induction, deduction and logical inferences. A good scientific theory also includes testable predictions through which the theory is potentially falsifiable.


Evidence: data that supports or disconfirms a theory e.g. objects (such as a fossil) traces of events (such as bloodstains and fingerprints at the scene of a crime), measurements (e.g. of distance or rate), observations (e.g of spectral lines in distant stars), calculations (which relate one measurement to another), confirmed or failed predictions.

Scientific method: currently the scientific method relies on trying to falsify a theory. Since theories are based on evidence, it is not possible to prove a theory. We would have to have all existing evidence to prove a theory and this is not the case. So a theory is always held tentatively pending the discovery of more evidence. We can, however, demonstrate that a theory is false because it does not adequately explain existing evidence or is directly contradicted by existing evidence. Scientific method then is the process of developing a prediction from the theory which can be tested against the evidence.

razzelflabben said:

But the OP does not ask for the given deifnitions but rather the understanding the individual person has of the words. It sounds like your understand for the word kind is that there is no understanding. Is that what you are trying to say?

Click to expand...

Yes basically.

Cool, a theory is a model, it explains and holds facts and evidence and makes predictions, so then, what is your understanding for evidence, facts, and predictions? Is a theory by itself an explaination? fact? evidence? or a prediction? or must all these exist?

Click to expand...

Didnt you follow that link?

So your premise is then that theories like gravity and evolution can be revised but not the toc? Is that correct? If so, why can't the toc be revised as well? If not, what revisions do you see in the toc?

Click to expand...

TOC? You mean theory of creation? Firstly there is no "theory of creation" except in their own minds, it is simply a dogmatic adherence to their faith. Secondly, they dont change their minds and those such as ICR and AIG have to sign sworn statements that no evidence will ever change ther minds. So they think they know the truth and will only ever allow one conclusion, no matter what evidence there is. Its not science, and its not a theory.

Ed

razzelflabben said:

I wonder what you see as the differences between creation and the toc?

Click to expand...

Creation to every non creationist theist simply means their God or Gods are responsible. Creationists on the other hand think more more literal magical thoughts


Ed

razzelflabben said:

So then philosophy is only part of science when it results in the testable? Is that about it?

Click to expand...

Basically, as I understand it, philosophy in science is required to set an objective baseline with which to compare ideas. In the case of science, the natural universe is that objective baseline. Therefore, ideas in science can be tested against what we know of the universe to determine if they are correct or incorrect.

For example, if scientists wanted to determine how old the Earth is, they could utilize data about the Earth to make a conclusion about its age. Decay of radiometric isotopes is what such set of data on which to base such a conclusion. And they would assume that such data is objective, since the decay of radiometric isotopes are bound by the laws of physics, which is part of the fundamental nature of the universe. And based on such data, scientists have concluded the Earth is about four-and-a-half billion years old.

But if one assumes that the universe is NOT objective, then one can make up anything they want regardless of the data. Case in point, Dr. Kurt Wise (a young Earth creationist) believes the world is about 6000 years old. Yet he freely admits that according to the scientific data, the world appears older than that. Faced with the data not agreeing with his beliefs, he has chosen to reject the philosophical premise that the universe is objective. So even though it appears that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, he chooses to accept that it is only 6000 years old based on religious beliefs.

The problem with his stance is there is no way to determine if he is right or wrong. I could just as easily argue that the Earth is only 7 days old, despite any evidence to the contrary. Some creationists argue that the Earth is 12000 years old or 20000 years old or whatever. How can you possibly deteremine who is right and who is wrong if you've rejected any objective baseline for comparing such ideas?

And this is the fundamental difference between creationists and those that accept mainstream science. Creationists (and IDists to a certain extent) have rejected the fundamental philosophical objectivity of science in favor of inserting any ideas they want based on their personal beliefs. In doing so they are removing the one thing that gives scientific conclusions any meaning whatsoever.

LittleNipper said:

What the Christian should know has been revealed by GOD. Who the Christian should place first is GOD.

Click to expand...

Then you admit that creationism is not science, but religion?

LittleNipper said:

Scientific terms must be only applied to what is actually observed by the individual in its entirety. This does not apply to opinion nor interpretation of data. Evoluionists have never seen the progressive change of apes into humans. All that they have are ancient skulls that may belong to extinct apes. Evolutionists are drawing unscientic conclusions based in naturalistic thinking and not in observerable fact.

Click to expand...

If you think the conclusions of the Theory of Evolution are unscientific, you are welcome to publish a falsification and collect your Nobel prize and worldwide acclaim. I'll be watching the journals for your scholarship.

razzelflabben said:

I fear you are missing the point. The point is, how can we start communicating and stop argueing? It seems to me that the first place to start in this communicating thing is to identify what we are saying and not to assume that we all are saying the same thing. For example, evolution, has many different degrees and ideas, in fact when we look up the definition we see that many things can and do evolve, things like ideas and lang. In fact, I am hoping that this thread will evolve into a communicate board. So dispite our understanding of the words, we all have different pictures or images, different ideas that come to mind when these different words are used. It is important if I am expecting to have a meaningful communication to understand how the words are being used. That is the point of this thread, to open the lines of communication and to start people off on the same page. So far, I am greatly disappointed in the evolutionist attempt to be non judgemental as I asked for in the OP. We'll see if the creationist do any better.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be judgemental, I'm pointing out a simple fact that we cannot ignore. Most of colloquial speech is extremely ambiguous and intuitive. When you speak to someone, they have to interpret your words because your words don't have exact meanings. In most common speech, this is not a problem because context and environment provide plenty of clues.

However, in science we cannot afford misunderstandings. We cannot assume that context and environment will always provide enough clues for scientists to understand one another, especially when they speak different languages. For this reason, science has developed a complete scientific vocabulary, composed of words appropriately defined for scientific use. We have this vocabulary for a very good reason, and so as much as I'd like to find a reasonable compromise, I'm afraid that creationists will simply have to learn the scientific terms and their definitions. Science cannot describe itself properly with common vocabulary, and so any effort to use common vocabulary for science is misguided from the start.

razzelflabben said:

So then you see no difference between creation and the theory of creation?

Click to expand...

How can you miss my point?

The Theory of Creation is:
1. Not a scientific theory, so isnt a theory. After all they wont ever change their minds anyway so why even pretend.
2. Creationism is simply a strict obstinent adherence to literal interpretation of their scriptures, twisting science to try and pretend to lay people that it has some kind of evidence and reason behind their beliefs.

"Creation":
Is simply those that agree God or Gods are resonsible. Just about every theists believe this unless they have some wacked out odd beliefs. But all Christians clearly do, including Christian scientists* (which does not include Creationists).




Ed

razzelflabben said:

This brings up another good understanding point, what do you see as the primary difference between the theory of evolution and the theory of creation? Where do the two theories disagree and where if at all do they agree? What seperates the two theories in your opinions?

Click to expand...

There is no theory of Creation! There is nothing to compare!

Ed