Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 113 of 614 (719344)
02-13-2014 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by RAZD
02-12-2014 6:21 PM


Example
RAZD writes:
The shining beacon of all science is the ability of theory to make predictions.
Indeed. Predictions are the gold standard. And a shining example of an evolutionary prediction is the prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik
quote:
What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.
So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a fishopod, beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.
Verification through prediction leading to discovery.
When was the last time creationism resulted in the prediction and subsequent discovery of anything at all........?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2014 6:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2014 4:44 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 120 of 614 (719456)
02-14-2014 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
02-13-2014 3:54 PM


Competing Theories and Discovery
Faith - How do you think discoveries are made? See Message 113
If it's all just wrong headed interpretation how do discoveries like Tiktaalik come about?
What discoveries supporting creationism have creationists ever made by applying their theories?
If one theory leads directly to the doscovery of new phenomena, new data, and a competing theory has never led to the discovery of anything at all - Which theory should we consider superior? Isn't discovery a rather important aspect of science.....?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 02-13-2014 3:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(4)
Message 277 of 614 (732218)
07-04-2014 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
07-03-2014 2:00 PM


Re: Apologetics again
Faith writes:
The weakness has already been stated a million times here. The weakness is that information from the prehistoric unwitnessed past is not testable.
Yes it is. You asserting otherwise a million times doesn't make you right. It just makes you relentlessly and persistently wrong.
It's all about discoveries. How do scientists make discoveries relating to the prehistoric past? Do you think archaeologists just start randomly digging around willy nilly without any idea why?
Again - (because you ignored it last time) Here is a shining example of an evolutionary discovery pertaining to the prehistoric past. The prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik
quote:
What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.
So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a fishopod, beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.
Verification through prediction leading to discovery.
When was the last time creationism resulted in the prediction and subsequent discovery of anything at all........?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 2:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 289 of 614 (733124)
07-14-2014 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Faith
07-05-2014 9:52 AM


Re: Apologetics again
Faith writes:
But most of what has been called a test here isn't a real test.
I think you misunderstand the nature of testing scientific hypotheses. It's all about the logical consequences of a hypothesis. If A is true then as a direct consequence of that B should also be true. Other theories may attempt to explain a phenomenon once discovered. But the true test of a theory, the gold standard, is to predict a new phenomenon which is then discovered.
For example consider the Big Bang. If the BB theory is correct then there must be a cosmic background radiation as a direct logical consequence of that.
quote:
After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some version of the Big Bang scenario must have occurred.
quote:
The discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964[28] secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos.
Why we make predictions and test them? We do this because it is the most exacting and most objective test of our theories we can come up with. It is relatively easy to construct a theory that meets all the known facts and yet which is full of subjective biases and wrong turns. But you devise a theory that directly predicts and leads to the discovery of new facts and you have every right to think you are onto something worth pursuing.
This is the thing those who proclaim 'it's all just interpretation' seem to keep missing. Where are all the creationist discoveries?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Faith, posted 07-05-2014 9:52 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Taq, posted 07-14-2014 6:18 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 309 of 614 (734716)
08-01-2014 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by ringo
08-01-2014 1:04 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Ringo writes:
Young-earthers have no explanation for how the oil could get there so fast, which is why they're not the ones who are finding the oil
To be entirely fair (in a damning-with-faint-praise-kinda-way) creationists can explain everything. If all else fails goddidit is their explanation. Barring that there will be some bizzarre set of events that cannot be disproved but which no-one has any reason to think actually occurred.
The key to scientific endeavour is to provide an explanation that then allows predictions to be made. Young-earthers have no explanation for how oil got where it is known to be that could possibly predict where new oil can be found.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by ringo, posted 08-01-2014 1:04 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by ringo, posted 08-01-2014 1:28 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 311 of 614 (734719)
08-01-2014 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by ringo
08-01-2014 1:28 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
me writes:
If all else fails goddidit is their explanation.
Ringo writes:
I'd call that an excuse for not having an explanation.
The sad issue for creationists is that they effectively seem to think the same thing.
Which is why they go to such ridiculous lengths to avoid the explicit statement that God just did it that way and instead come up with convoluted yet unfalsifiable explanations as to how things are as they are. Explanations which have no predictive power at all and which are superficially "scientific" at best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by ringo, posted 08-01-2014 1:28 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024