what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?

[John Caldwell]

Science can though .. its called a belief.

Yes, "science" can.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, "science" can.

Science is defined by its well known and widely taught objective process .. no matter what one might call it, or find in some dictionary definition.
(So, the scary quotes in your post there, are pretty meaningless).

 

[John Caldwell]

Science is defined by its well known and widely taught objective process .. no matter what one might call it, or find in some dictionary definition.
(So, the scary quotes in your post there, are pretty meaningless).

I was actually agreeing with your post.

Science is objective. It is interesting that many scientist theorize about intelligent design while others exclude any possibility outside of a natural process.

Just like theology, science should be objective but when it gets to the theoretical typically becomes subjective to an extent.

Look at the theory of evolution. Objectively it is an unproven hypothesis. Subjectively many consider it scientific fact.

Science often becomes pseudoscience (just like theology often becomes philosophy).

 

[SelfSim]

Science is objective. It is interesting that many scientist theorize about intelligent design while others exclude any possibility outside of a natural process.

I would say some people speculate about intelligent design but their concept, thus far, has failed at the very first step of submission to the scientific method (ie: form an objectively testable hypothesis). So its not scientists theorizing there .. its just believers believing.

Just like theology, science should be objective but when it gets to the theoretical typically becomes subjective to an extent.

Science's 'theories' have already been objectively tested (by testable definition of that term). All of science's definitions are objectively testable too, or have already been extensively tested with abundantly consistent results.
The term 'objective' just means follows the scientific method, whereas 'subjective' ends up meaning: follows the belief way. This is demonstrable .. with no evidence to the contrary.

Look at the theory of evolution. Objectively it is an unproven hypothesis. Subjectively many consider it scientific fact.

Nope .. I disagree .. its a solid, scientific theory and a fundamental physical principle. Its been extensively tested and has produced abundant physical evidence.

Science often becomes pseudoscience (just like theology often becomes philosophy).

In my experience (and this IMHO): only by those who don't get the concept of science and its purpose from the outset.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was actually agreeing with your post.

Science is objective. It is interesting that many scientist theorize about intelligent design while others exclude any possibility outside of a natural process.

Just like theology, science should be objective but when it gets to the theoretical typically becomes subjective to an extent.

Look at the theory of evolution. Objectively it is an unproven hypothesis. Subjectively many consider it scientific fact.

Science often becomes pseudoscience (just like theology often becomes philosophy).

I hate to say this, but that last statement you made in this post is a terrible analogy, John ...

... but the good news is: I won't hold it against you, bro!

 

[NxNW]

Look at the theory of evolution. Objectively it is an unproven hypothesis. Subjectively many consider it scientific fact.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been verified.

That evolution occurs is a fact. The details are up for some debate.

 

[John Caldwell]

A theory is a hypothesis that has been verified.

That evolution occurs is a fact. The details are up for some debate.

No, the Theory of Evolution (which technically is not even a true scientific theory as it cannot be proven via the scientific method) is not a fact.

Evolution does occur, at least within a species.

But this is a shell game advocates of the Theory of Evolution play to avoid facts. The Theory of Evolution is a short name for the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and involves more than organisms within a species evolving via genetic changes.

Dogs were once hypothesized to have evolved from wolves. This has sence been disproven, but it appears wolves and dogs share a common ancestor. They are related. They are the same species (canidae). BUT the idea all species evolved from a common species is less than a scientific theory. It is merely an idea based on applying scientific principles (micro evolution) to all life.

 

[Bradskii]

No, the Theory of Evolution (which technically is not even a true scientific theory as it cannot be proven via the scientific method) is not a fact.

I literally stopped reading after that first sentence. If you think scientific theories are facts that can be proved then you are so far away from understanding basic scientific principles that there was no point in continuing.

It constantly amazes me how people who don't understand the very fundamentals of science feel they can argue against it.

 

[John Caldwell]

I literally stopped reading after that first sentence. If you think scientific theories are facts that can be proved then you are so far away from understanding basic scientific principles that there was no point in continuing.

It constantly amazes me how people who don't understand the very fundamentals of science feel they can argue against it.

I do not think scientific theories are facts that can be proved. You completely misunderstood my reply (a danger when one stops reading after the first sentence and starts making assumptions rather than asking for clarification.

In science, the word “theory” indicates a very high level of certainty. The reason I say the Theory of the Evolution of Species is not a proper theory is that it cannot be subjected to testing that might support it or prove it wrong.

That said, I could be mistaking. How are you suggesting the Theory of Evolution of Species be tested?

If we cannot subject a theory to testing then it is just musing on scientific observations (science fiction).

The issue is that the scientific world has become so obsessed with "disproving" intelligent design that repeated failures has led to a downgrading of science itself.

In the past one formed a theory, tested the theory, and either proved or disproved the theory. Now many "scientists" move from facts and data to pseudo scientists never realizing they have entered the arena of HG Wells rather than Isaac Newton.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I do not think scientific theories are facts that can be proved. You completely misunderstood my reply (a danger when one stops reading after the first sentence and starts making assumptions rather than asking for clarification.

In science, the word “theory” indicates a very high level of certainty. The reason I say the Theory of the Evolution of Species is not a proper theory is that it cannot be subjected to testing that might support it or prove it wrong.

That said, I could be mistaking. How are you suggesting the Theory of Evolution of Species be tested?

If we cannot subject a theory to testing then it is just musing on scientific observations (science fiction).

The issue is that the scientific world has become so obsessed with "disproving" intelligent design that repeated failures has led to a downgrading of science itself.

In the past one formed a theory, tested the theory, and either proved or disproved the theory. Now many "scientists" move from facts and data to pseudo scientists never realizing they have entered the arena of HG Wells rather than Isaac Newton.

I could be wrong but it almost sounds like you're confusing theory for hypothesis.

Usually, we "test" hypotheses and we revise theories, since a scientific theory is more of an umbrella like description that explains how several fields converge together to support a scientific "fact"......like, say, that of macro-evolution.

We can hypothesize about the nature of classifications in cladistics, and we might even figure out a way to "test" some specific niche of of this sitting within current theories. But where Natural History is concerned, some "testing" will obviously be out of reach since we might be dealing with the past.

Either way, it's an open conversation, part of which involves facts (about species) that pertain to aspects of Evolution.

 

[John Caldwell]

I could be wrong but it almost sounds like you're confusing theory for hypothesis.

Usually, we "test" hypotheses and we revise theories, since a scientific theory is more of an umbrella like description that explains how several fields converge together to support a scientific "fact"......like, say, that of macro-evolution.

We can hypothesize about the nature of classifications in cladistics, and we might even figure out a way to "test" some specific niche of of this sitting within current theories. But where Natural History is concerned, some "testing" will obviously be out of reach since we might be dealing with the past.

Either way, it's an open conversation, part of which involves facts (about species) that pertain to aspects of Evolution.

Could be. I always thought of a theory as simply being an unproven idea that is scientifically plausable. The AMNH makes the testable distinction.

I see their point. A scientific theory should grow out of a hypothesis (it is more than a hypothesis), but it should be testable (otherwise it is not science).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Could be. I always thought of a theory as simply being an unproven idea that is scientifically plausable. The AMNH makes the testable distinction.

I see their point. A scientific theory should grow out of a hypothesis (it is more than a hypothesis), but it should be testable (otherwise it is not science).

Well no, my friend. A scientific theory is usually supported by data/evidence rather than simply being an unproven idea; a scientific theory is typically somewhat substantial in nature, even if not outright proven in an absolute way. It's more than just plausible.

By contrast, the denotation of the term 'theory' that you're using is usually seen to be the colloquial, non-scientific meaning of 'theory.' So, these are two different usages of the word, but they're not equivalent.

 

[John Caldwell]

Well no, my friend. A scientific theory is usually supported by data/evidence rather than simply being an unproven idea; a scientific theory is typically somewhat substantial in nature, even if not outright proven in an absolute way.

By contrast, the denotation of the term 'theory' that you're using is usually seen to be the colloquial, non-scientific meaning of 'theory.' So, these are two different usages of the word, but they're not equivalent.

There are different meanings of "theory" (not just colloquial), on that we agree.

My issue is when theories are treated as facts. There are no evidences of macro evolution (yet), nor is there supporting data (data than in itself supports the idea).

People use data to support theories, but this is our use of data (and data can be used to support opposing theories).

That said, walk me through macro evolution using the scientific method. How far do we get?

My ultimate point is that belief in macro evolution is a faith statement. The data is real, but the conclusion is not factual.

And that's fine. I don't mind faith statements (even opposing ones). I just think we need to recognize things for what they are.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Yttrium]

My issue is when theories are treated as facts. There are no evidences of macro evolution (yet), nor is there supporting data (data than in itself supports the idea).

What is the evidence? We see evolution occurring in nature. We see trends in the DNA and the fossil record. A scientific theory is made to fit the known evidence. It doesn't have to cover all the gaps, it only has to explain the evidence we can find. If all the known evidence is consistent with the theory, it's a very solid theory.

 

[Astrid]

I literally stopped reading after that first sentence. If you think scientific theories are facts that can be proved then you are so far away from understanding basic scientific principles that there was no point in continuing.

It constantly amazes me how people who don't understand the very fundamentals of science feel they can argue against it.

Amazing but eze- peezy.
There's equivocation
There's cut n paste from AIG
And
There's just making stuff up.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My issue is when theories are treated as facts. There are no evidences of macro evolution (yet), nor is there supporting data (data than in itself supports the idea).

Actually, from what I've read and have understood, a scientific theory doesn't become a fact, rather it explains the facts. Moreover, because science only offers us provisional truth(s) and not absolute truth(s), a scientific theory such as that of Evolution is open to being revised when further, better data, evidence and testing come about.

see Theory and Fact | National Center for Science Education

That said, walk me through macro evolution using the scientific method. How far do we get?

There isn't really just one solidified, officialized scientific method; there are method(S) appropriate for the fields in which scientific investigation is being done. Scientists in some fields are able to conduct experiments, whereas in others, some do not because they cannot. Some rely on discovery of data from the past and are subject to educated interpretations that are open to certain limited testing and then possible revision such as can be seen in Paleontology, Archaeology, Paleoanthropolgy, Geology, etc, etc.

My ultimate point is that belief in macro evolution is a faith statement. The data is real, but the conclusion is not factual.

Perhaps, but I don't usually define "faith" in this way. I'd rather use the concept of "reasonable acceptance" as a working definition for faith. I don't even see Christian faith as utterly irrational, it too should be seen as a form of "reasonable acceptance" rather than some kind of ethereal, purely supernatural work of God. We have specific information, some of which can be seen today as data and facts.

So, let's not use the term "faith" when dealing with science since as I've already said above, mainstream science only gives us provisional truth, not absolute truth and we already know that we have to use our rational capacities to evaluate data and evidences. That's my view on "faith," but feel free to disagree, brother. Just know that if you do, I'll start pulling books for reference off my shelves or e-documents from the web to clarify my points or correct both of our errors.

And that's fine. I don't mind faith statements (even opposing ones). I just think we need to recognize things for what they are.

Philosophy, recognizing thing for "what they are" takes more than mere belief.

 

[John Caldwell]

Actually, from what I've read and have understood, a scientific theory doesn't become a fact, rather it explains the facts. Moreover, because science only offers us provisional truth(s) and not absolute truth(s), a scientific theory such as that of Evolution is open to being revised when further, better data, evidence and testing come about.

see Theory and Fact | National Center for Science Education

There isn't really just one solidified, officialized scientific method; there are method(S) appropriate for the fields in which scientific investigation is being done. Scientists in some fields are able to conduct experiments, whereas in others, some do not because they cannot. Some rely on discovery of data from the past and are subject to educated interpretations that are open to certain limited testing and then possible revision such as can be seen in Paleontology, Archaeology, Paleoanthropolgy, Geology, etc, etc.

Perhaps, but I don't usually define "faith" in this way. I'd rather use the concept of "reasonable acceptance" as a working definition for faith. I don't even see Christian faith as utterly irrational, it too should be seen as a form of "reasonable acceptance" rather than some kind of ethereal, purely supernatural work of God. We have specific information, some of which can be seen today as data and facts.

So, let's not use the term "faith" when dealing with science since as I've already said above, mainstream science only gives us provisional truth, not absolute truth and we already know that we have to use our rational capacities to evaluate data and evidences. That's my view on "faith," but feel free to disagree, brother. Just know that if you do, I'll start pulling books for reference off my shelves or e-documents from the web to clarify my points or correct both of our errors.


Philosophy, recognizing thing for "what they are" takes more than mere belief.

Yes, I get philosophy (that is something I enjoy). The issue is competing theories can explain the same facts. It is wrong to treat these things as fact.

 

[Yttrium]

Yes, I get philosophy (that is something I enjoy). The issue is competing theories can explain the same facts. It is wrong to treat these things as fact.

I'd say that it's wrong to treat any scientific theory as a fact. There are some who conclude that a theory is so well established that it might as well be a fact. I think that's a dangerous approach, as it might cause one to overlook other possibilities.

In the case of the Theory of Evolution (common descent), there are no alternate scientific theories, or even solid hypotheses. There is some speculation involving supernatural forces. That's about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd say that it's wrong to treat any scientific theory as a fact.

Can you add a scientific theory to a fact?

And, if so, does it negate the fact, or strengthen it?