why we do not believe secular scientists

[GooberJIL]

Yes it can. A fossil being tested and examined is an observation. Such observations can be used to create an hypothesis which can then be tested by further observations. By your criteria no astronomy could be performed or geology.

The fossil can be observed and tested, but one can not observe a fossil mutating from another species, nor can one observe that fossil procreating a new species, nor can it demonstrate that it procreated at all. The only thing a fossil proves is that something living is now dead and preserved for us to study.

Please point me to where on the Earth we can find the geologic column as presented by science. In the Grand Canyon we have a mile of exposed rock layers, does it match the geologic column?

 

[random_guy]

The fossil can be observed and tested, but one can not observe a fossil mutating from another species, nor can one observe that fossil procreating a new species, nor can it demonstrate that it procreated at all. The only thing a fossil proves is that something living is now dead and preserved for us to study.

Again, by the same logic, there's no such thing as forensic science because no one was there to witness many crimes. Astronomy involves a lot of observations of past events, is not considered a science, either. In fact, many of the scientific theories are voided since many things are unobservable by us, we only see evidence left behind of the events. You basically rule out all of particle physics as scientific.

Why is it that nearly every single scientist think differently from you? Could it be that you're the one that's incorrect, not the actual scientists that work in science?

 

[KerrMetric]

The fossil can be observed and tested, but one can not observe a fossil mutating from another species, nor can one observe that fossil procreating a new species, nor can it demonstrate that it procreated at all. The only thing a fossil proves is that something living is now dead and preserved for us to study.

What you have said is irrelevant to the point that you cannot make observations of the past. A fossil is a lot more than "something once living is now dead".

Your point, that I responded to, was the claim you cannot apply the scientific method to prehistoric events. That is garbage.

Please point me to where on the Earth we can find the geologic column as presented by science. In the Grand Canyon we have a mile of exposed rock layers, does it match the geologic column?

Williston Basin, North Dakota.
Mckenzie river delta in Canada.

How many more do you want - there are a couple of dozen more locations around the world.

 

[notto]

but one can not observe a fossil mutating from another species, nor can one observe that fossil procreating a new species, nor can it demonstrate that it procreated at all.

None of which would be expected or required by the theory of evolution.

Populations evolve, not individuals. If we did see a fossil mutating into another species or giving birth to a new species, it would falsify evolution.

Suggesting that is the type of evidence scientists are looking for in the fossil record or that lack of it suggests anything about the validity of the scientific theory of evolution is a strawman argument. You are making up things that simply are not related to what we find or expect to find in the fossil record and how it is used as a line of evidence to support the conclusions of the theory of evolution.

You are asking to find something that evolution does not predict. I can only assume this is because you are either unfamiliar with the theory of evolution, the fossil record, or both.

 

[gwynedd1]

The reason for all the conflict is the ambiguous context of adressing the "fossil". How can one assert that the scientific method can or cannot be used on a fossil without stating the hypothesis? If the hypothesis is a bird fossil called fossilX ate "goneberries", the scientific method cannot prove it. The results of observations can be used to create a theory good or bad only.
Say we hypothosize that we can find fossilY in the same layer as fossileX called layerX. I can "prove" we can find fossilY in layerX . Suppose I have evidence that fossileY is a goneberry bush. Suppose I only find goneberries in layerY and no fossileX in layerY. I can create a theory that our bird did not eat goneberries.

It is my observation that Creationist arguments over emphasize the role of direct observation and tend to discount reasonable conclusions such as the one illustrated though it is not a direct scientific methodology. It is also my observation that Evolutionists will deemphasize the role of their interpretations. One could argue that fossilX made fossilY exitinct on rather flimsy evidence. But then a quick exitinction is a possiblity if goneberrys are in a preceding layer. So now we have a poosiblity that our bird not only ate them, but loved them to death. There is the shadow of doubt we do not have with direct observation.

 

[Dannager]

So you admit that science can not answer the why, that is progress.

STOP playing with semantics. We were discussing causal "why". Don't change the topic just to suit your argument. We can see what you're doing. Stick to the topic.

Science can not be agnostic concerning origins!

It's not. It's agnostic concerning the supernatural.

The priori of "there is a God" or "there is not a God" is foundational. It is where science and religion clash.

It is not foundational to science. I'm telling you, that's how it is. That is how science operates. You can say "no way" all you want, but it's not going to change the fact that science is agnostic when it comes to the supernatural.

You now saying "if it exists" is quite a spin from "If it's a miracle, it's God breaking reality anyway." Don't all miracles happen in 'reality' or are you saying that a person that is healed by a miracle is unreal? If something is unreal then it doesn't exist.

I was using a colloquial turn of phrase. By "breaking reality" I meant that a miracle involves a supernatural event that defies what we are able to understand and measure about the world around us. I'm sure you understood that too. Please don't screw with semantics just to further your position.

All the miracles that I mentioned occurred in the natural. Which one was not observed? Most of them happened repeatedly with the same expected result.

And can we create testable conditions to verify and evidence these miracles? Every single time I've ever seen someone reportedly witness a miracle, they have avoided or failed any empirical test to determine its validity. Please, if you know someone capable of repeating a miracle in an empirical environment, let us know. Let anyone in the scientific community know. If you don't, you're only harming your position's chances.

1. must be observable

Supposed miracles are only observed by a handful of people.

2. must be repeatable

Most miracles are never repeated. None have ever been repeated in an empirical environment.

3. must produce the expected result.

When repeated. In an empirical, controlled environment.

 

[random_guy]

The reason for all the conflict is the ambiguous context of adressing the "fossil". How can one assert that the scientific method can or cannot be used on a fossil without stating the hypothesis? If the hypothesis is a bird fossil called fossilX ate "goneberries", the scientific method cannot prove it. The results of observations can be used to create a theory good or bad only.

Again, science doesn't deal with proofs. You keep using this terminology that doesn't apply. Again, can you prove to me that gravity exists? What if what we think gravity is (force of attraction between masses) is actually due to something else (electrostatic force between charges) that we never thought of? Also, what is wrong with theories, seeing how theories are what all scientists thrive for.

You seem to think that if a theory has any gaps, there's a huge problem and that's why you only seem to accept things you can see yourself. The problem with this thinking is every single theory has gaps. And many of the theories are based off of evidence of the events, not observations of the events.

What's the difference between observing a fossil to make theories, and observing the energy signature/radiation/etc... of a collision of particles we can't see to form a theory? Do you think that particle physics and particle accelerators aren't scientific because we only observe evidence of the events, we can't actually see the events?

 

[GooberJIL]

but one can not observe a fossil mutating from another species, nor can one observe that fossil procreating a new species, nor can it demonstrate that it procreated at all.

None of which would be expected or required by the theory of evolution.

Right! Science is a discipline dictated by the use of the scientific method and evilution is not science.

Populations evolve, not individuals.

you can't have a population without individuals.

If we did see a fossil mutating into another species or giving birth to a new species, it would falsify evolution.

Suggesting that is the type of evidence scientists are looking for in the fossil record or that lack of it suggests anything about the validity of the scientific theory of evolution is a strawman argument. You are making up things that simply are not related to what we find or expect to find in the fossil record and how it is used as a line of evidence to support the conclusions of the theory of evolution.

You are asking to find something that evolution does not predict. I can only assume this is because you are either unfamiliar with the theory of evolution, the fossil record, or both.

 

[archaeologist]

Again, can you prove to me that gravity exists? What if what we think gravity is (force of attraction between masses) is actually due to something else (electrostatic force between charges) that we never thought of?

it would still be gravity and doing the same job no matter what its source or make up is.

Also, what is wrong with theories, seeing how theories are what all scientists thrive for.

depends upon where the theories lead to. they are wrong if they lead away from God and teach something that is not of Him.

The fossil can be observed and tested, but one can not observe a fossil mutating from another species, nor can one observe that fossil procreating a new species, nor can it demonstrate that it procreated at all. The only thing a fossil proves is that something living is now dead and preserved for us to study.

actually this is correct. evolutionists read too much into a fossil and infer something that isn't there or is non-existent.

this idea that science can't prove anything is just an excuse to avoid providing any proof and is a sign of the pseudo-science they abhor.

maybe evolutionists hate pseudo-science so much is for the fact that they see so much of themselves in it.

None of which would be expected or required by the theory of evolution

which provides the escape route for the evollutionist to change the theory as they see fit, to find something that will be accepted by the public.

tthe very fact that evolution canot be proven, cannot be observed, cannot be established beyond conjecture or inferrence , cannot be experienced, and so on. verifies that it is not true and does not exist.

the truth does not need escape routes, excuses, it can be verified in one's lifetime in all aspects of life, not just a few then extrapolated, and so on.

evolution as a popular theory has only been around for a few short years and any acceptance of it as true or the method God used is just naive for they do not take into account all the ramifications and injustices that would be brought into life that need to be dealt with.

i have touched on this before and people refuse to discuss it, as it means changing their desires and beliefs. it also means that science is relegated to the back bench and they are too used to giving the orders to allow that.

science in its present form is incapable of deciphering any truths of God and it revels in that notion for it gives them something to do, to think about. so instead of helping people with their intelligence they are lost wasting time playing their games, all the while people are losing their souls to hell because of it.

here is a thought---go dig a well and invent a cheap water purifier so the poor can drink healthy water. stop wasting your time with evolution. it never happened, it doesn't exist.

 

[Dannager]

Right! Science is a discipline dictated by the use of the scientific method and evilution is not science.

lol He said evilution.

Evolutionary theory is science. It adheres to all aspects of scientific methodology. You just don't like it.

you can't have a population without individuals.

Sure. But individuals still don't evolve. Individuals mutate, but evolution only occurs when mutations accrue in a population.

It's like you were told "steering wheels don't drive on roads, cars do" and responded with "you can't have a car without a steering wheel". While true, it has nothing to do with the argument.

 

[KerrMetric]

you can't have a population without individuals.

You just don't understand do you? That's OK - people all have their different skill sets and abilities - but why argue something you don't understand?

 

[random_guy]

it would still be gravity and doing the same job no matter what its source or make up is.

No it wouldn't. Gravity is defined as the attractive force between masses. If it turned out to be an electrostatic force, that we'd have to toss out gravity and come up with a new definition. Are you telling me luminiferous aether theory still applies because light is being propogated?

depends upon where the theories lead to. they are wrong if they lead away from God and teach something that is not of Him.

It's not theories that lead people away from God. It's people's interpretations of the Bible that does that. If someone told me I had to accept Creationism to be a Christian, I probably would stop being a Christian. I believe God would create a world that we could study.

 

[GooberJIL]

In fact, many of the scientific theories are voided since many things are unobservable by us, we only see evidence left behind of the events. You basically rule out all of particle physics as scientific.

They have long acknowledged that the mere act of observation changes the outcome.

 

[Dannager]

They have long acknowledged that the mere act of observation changes the outcome.

You don't really know anything about quantum mechanics and entanglement and uncertainty, right? Because it sounds like you just heard this from some newspaper headline and decided to run with it, ignoring what it actually means. I just want to make sure: you have no idea what you're talking about here, right?

 

[random_guy]

They have long acknowledged that the mere act of observation changes the outcome.

Particle physics is well outside my field, but I'm sure someone here is more knowledgeable than me. Is your position that particle physics and particle accelerator experiments are not scientific, then?

 

[archaeologist]

we'd have to toss out gravity and come up with a new definition

i will disagree and leave it at that. i am getting tired.

It's not theories that lead people away from God. It's people's interpretations of the Bible that does that.

in this instance, i will say it can be both.

with creationism you can study the world around us but you cannot apply what God did to evolution or any secular theory nor can you do so for a 'christianized' version of those items.

by all means, study treees, plants and flowers, see how they work but at no time attribute what God did in 6 24 hour days to a secular construct. that is just wrong.

people hear the theory of evolution and they follow it, they are being led away from God because of the theory not their interpretation of the Bible. they allow that theory to then contaminate their interpretation of the Bible which will lead them further astray as well.

 

[gwynedd1]

Again, science doesn't deal with proofs. You keep using this terminology that doesn't apply. Again, can you prove to me that gravity exists? What if what we think gravity is (force of attraction between masses) is actually due to something else (electrostatic force between charges) that we never thought of? Also, what is wrong with theories, seeing how theories are what all scientists thrive for.

Err random_guy,
Gravity exists because we observe it. No matter where you are, there it is. I did qualify the exception of epistemological arguments and I identify yours as such.
I do know someone who thinks it is the mechanical force of a wave. Thats a theory. What if? Is the stuff of science. There are however distinctions to be made on what is what.

You seem to think that if a theory has any gaps, there's a huge problem and that's why you only seem to accept things you can see yourself.

When they are presented as facts, expressed with poor use of terminology, arrogantly touted as the absolute truth, yes its all as true as it seems. The subject at hand does not have just any old "gap".

The problem with this thinking is every single theory has gaps. And many of the theories are based off of evidence of the events, not observations of the events.

The size of the gap matters just a bit. Sometimes the lady folk lie to make us feel better.

What's the difference between observing a fossil to make theories, and observing the energy signature/radiation/etc... of a collision of particles we can't see to form a theory? Do you think that particle physics and particle accelerators aren't scientific because we only observe evidence of the events, we can't actually see the events?

In terms of explanation, that would be a yes they are theoretical. In terms of prediction, that would be no they are proven to predict. Particles that exist as analogs are not proven to exist as such and such. IMHO

 

[USincognito]

IOW: when modern science is confronted with the fact that there is more to this physical existence than what meets eye it turns tail and runs... runs from God like it has for the last 200 years. In this controversy there is no neutral ground.

Could you cite some examples of this happening? Oh, and don't use "IOW" becuase that means you're getting ready to twist someone elses words. It's dishonest.

One of the great ironies I find delicious from Creationist claims like this is that the Catholic Church uses the scientific method and a presumption of naturalism when investigating miracles.

Would like to see those examples though.

The scientific method can not be used because there is no direct observation of a prehistoric event.

That's not true because we some things, like astronomy, can only be direct observation of prehistoric events. The 1987 supernova happened 170,000+ years ago, long before the advent of history, be we couldn't observe it directly until 1987.

And we don't need to observe things directly to be able to draw conclusions about them. If that were a requirement, forensics wouldn't be allowed in the courtroom.

I hope you don't watch CSI.

 

[USincognito]

What is the cause of .... at some point you have to run into the original cause, God. There is no avoiding that and to start from the premise that there maybe no God would skew all interpretation/observation from there on.

Again, you can keep conflating the explanitory why (vs. the explanitory how) with the metaphysical why, but that won't make the two the same thing. Science reaches a point where it doesn't answer an original cause in some causes, but more importantly and I'll bold it for you original cause is not the same as an explanitory or operational why.

Go back and reread my example of the different answers to why the sky is blue.

That's why I did the "just for fun" because there is a Science of Philosophy and I knew that the assertion would be made that philosophy is not science.

This is just the first one I tripped over, I'm sure there are more.

I couldn't get your .pdf to open because I have an outdated version of Adobe, but, no, science and philosophy are seperate areas... you know, that's why we have different words describing them. For one thing, philosophy, though the use of logic, seeks to derive proofs while science always remains tentative never fully accepting anything as proven (except in a colloquial sense).

I also plugged "science of philosophy" into Google and nothing on the first two pages got exact hits. A lot of hits for the philosophy of science though which is an area of philosophy.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=science+of+philosophy

Here's the next "just for fun"
Philosophy is such a big part of science that it has an association and journal dedicated to it. There is also an electronic version here: http://www.jstor.org/journals/00318248.html

Actually you linked to a jounal on the "philosphy of science" which is different from your original assertion that there was a "science of philosophy". The philosophy of science isn't the practice of science, but an area that studies how science operates, especially in terms of thinkers like Plato, Kuhn and Popper. You're conflating again.

I hope you can see that science is married to philosophy, coming and going.

Perhaps I'm blind, or you're trying to create a marriage where one doesn't exist.
A simple persusal of the Harvard Department of Philosophy course listings for 2007-2008 shows courses such as:
Intro to Philosophy of Law
Intro to Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Physics
Philosophy of Mind
Political Philosphy
So by your reasoning, all of these topics must be married to science and to each other.

The only one that comes even close is a cross listed course Science 106: Ancient History of Science because the earliest scientists were natural philosophers.

 

[USincognito]

The fossil can be observed and tested, but one can not observe a fossil mutating from another species, nor can one observe that fossil procreating a new species, nor can it demonstrate that it procreated at all. The only thing a fossil proves is that something living is now dead and preserved for us to study.

Now you're just being silly. Of course fossils don't transform into anything else. They're fossils. But that doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions from them based on morphology. Sometimes the changes over time are very subtle to the unitiated, but to paleontologists they're staggering. In the reptile to mammal transitions some of the best evidence is how the three bone reptilian jaw becomes a single bone mammalian jaw.

And fossils aren't limited to mineralized corpses. There's also tracks, burrows and coprolites from which we can make determinations on behavior.

Please point me to where on the Earth we can find the geologic column as presented by science. In the Grand Canyon we have a mile of exposed rock layers, does it match the geologic column?

I really wish people would do a little preparation before coming to this debate.

Yes, the Grand Canyon exactly matches the geologic column.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area
http://www.nps.gov/archive/grca/pphtml/subnaturalfeatures14.html