Thermodynamics

quote:

---

I wasnt asking if evolution had an answer, i was asking if evolutionists did.

---

The tag "evolutionist" is a bit silly to begin with. If you accept the theory of gravity are you a gravitationlist? If you accept Germ theory are you a germist? I guess that would make me a evolution-gravitation-germist. Those that accept evolution follow very different philosophies, such as theistic evolutionists. Theistic evoltionists would say that the Universe was started by God while agnostics and atheists would say that the Universe was started by a quantum fluctuation or simply say "I don't know".

Yeah your right, its not specific is it. I will make sure i am more specific in future. Up until this point when i have said "evolutionist" i have meant "athiestic evolutionists". Thanks for the tip

I'm not sure why you ask. I was only describing the line of argument typically employed by Creationists to justify scenarios not in accordance with currently accepted scientific principles. A closely related but much simpler form of this approach is the "Were you there?" argument used to question nearly anything that happened in pre-history. If you really believe science is anti-God or anti-religious then I can understand your reluctance to accept scientific theories. Science is actually neutral on the question of God. Science accepts theories which are supported by evidence. As has been said here many times, absence of evidence cannot be interpreted as evidence of absence. That there is no evidence of God should not be construed as evidence of his nonexistence. From a scientific perspective, all we can say at this time is that we have no evidence of God, and so hypotheses of God remain unsupported. To be atheistic science would have to argue there is no God, but it doesn't do that.--Percy

Very few of us here are atheists, and quite a few evolutionary biologists are not atheists. Why would you only want to question atheistic evolutionists and exclude the many non-atheistic evolutionists?

quote:

---

Up until this point when i have said "evolutionist" i have meant "athiestic evolutionists". Thanks for the tip Yeah your right, its not specific is it. I will make sure i am more specific in future. Up until this point when i have said "evolutionist" i have meant "athiestic evolutionists". Thanks for the tip

---

A lot of people get hung up on that as well, especially christians who are new to the debate. Evolution does not equal atheism/agnosticism. Even the Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution as an explanation for our earthly form, but they do say that only God could have given us our soul. For theistic evolutionists the theory of evolution is consistent with God's Creation. For them, evolution is the tool that God used to create. Getting back to the topic, theists accept that God created the natural laws, and one of those laws may have resulted in the creation of the Universe. Science is about explanations but it stays away from philosophy/theology which deal with Ultimate Causes.

There's a tremendous difference.When creationists argue that we haven't observed everything everywhere across all time, they are using that argument to reject evidence (that contradicts their pet theories) on the basis that the events were not personally observed by currently-living human beings whom the creationists trust. In other words, there is lots of relevant evidence but they are seizing on a convenient pretext to reject it.In the case of where the energy for the Big Bang came from, there's very little relevant evidence. We see lots of energy and can make lots of deductions about what happened up to about 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang ... but we only have speculation about what went before. So speculation that sounds wild and crazy is really just a tool for exploring the unknown, and speculation that is contradicted by evidence is discarded immediately.

Sorry mate i didnt mean it like that. I never thought about it to tell you the truth. But this whole time i was under the impression that i was talking to blokes who didnt beleive in a god, dont ask me why. I just did. I like to hear answers from both (or all 3), but in the future i will be more specific when addressing "evolutionists"

Heh heh im sure that "were you there?" argument must get tiring."If you really believe science is anti-God or anti-religious"No no no. Iv never thought that, and i dont know why youd think that would bother me even if it did. But it seems to me that normal science is neutral to both you guys and the creationists (correct me if im wrong, but thats the impression i am under at this point in time)I mean, what hard evidence do you have that proves the TOE is correct and all other theorys false? And to the creationists if there are any one here, what do you have in your arsenal that continues to baffle evolutionists of all varieties?

I'm not sure what "normal" science is...No science is not neutral to creation science - it's downright deadly - (take Noah's Ark - he would have been burnt to death along with everything on the planet).Science is neutral to the god.

There is no evidence that proves TOE. This may sound like I'm playing some obscure semantic game, but in science theories are never proven. The thermodynamic theories, Newton's theories, Einstein's theories, gravitational theories, and evolutionary theories, too, none of them have been proven.In science you can never prove a theory true. Theories can only be supported by evidence. All you can do is add to the pile of evidence supporting a theory, thereby broadening its sphere of acceptance within the scientific community.But the power of a theory lies in more than just its supporting evidence. Just as important is its ability to make predictions. A good example is provided by contrasting geology's view of earth's history with Noah's flood.If the earth were ancient and had witnessed many successive eras of geology and life, here's what would we expect to find as we dig into earth's layers:

• The deeper you go, the more ancient the layer.
• The deeper you go, the more different the fossils will be from modern forms.

If the earth were young and most of its geology were due to Noah's flood, we would expect to find:

• Fossils would occur in a primarily random order somewhat influenced by local conditions.
• Evidence of a flood would be present everywhere.
• Since the layers formed in the same year, they should all be roughly the same age.

With these predictions of the two theories you can now dig into the ground and verify which provides the closest match. If both match equally well, there will be a big scientific debate until more evidence settles the issue. If both match poorly, scientists will have to search for a new theory. And if one matches the evidence better than the other, then that theory will tend to attract the dominant portion of scientific acceptance, though not all. Even the most strongly supported theories have their detractors.--Percy

"Normal" science is "opertational" science. This contains all observable processes that we can see continuing in the world.

I see - can you direct towards a science book* that defines science in such a manner?So what are the non-"normal" sciences?* a book does not equal badly designed website.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 19 February 2005 08:00 AM

I like the way you explain it. This is something iv started to realise these past few days.Now correct me if im wrong but i remember reading somewhere (this is about 2 years ago) that they have found fossilised trees spanning several of these layers. I dont have any links or anything sorry because this was in a book i saw in the school library, and all this talk of layers made me remember it. Now how does anyone explain this? And i remember this pretty well so my memorys not fuzzy on what the chapter was about, basically they have found trees that pass through several layers. How could this happen?

By the layers being deposited relatively quickly. Creationists are the ultimate uniformitarians, in spite of their attacks on mainstream geologists for being uniformitarian; creationists assume that everything always happens at the same rate.The term most often used is "polystrate". Good articles at "Polystrate" Tree Fossils and More on "Polystrate" Fossils. Lots of discussion right here on this board, at Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion).

I didnt get it off a website. The only time iv used the net to look into science/evolution/creation has been on this forum, asking you guys stuff because i dont like sifting through websites. There are several types of science, and the one im addressing is operational science. If the "normal" part bothers you, forget about it. I only stated it because i have seen the two words put together in
QLD Science for Seniors 12". So i cant answer your question. And it defined operation science as a science that is only involved with observable processes which repeat themselves over time, but that we can view in the present.