Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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:   Verifying truth in science - is evolution faith-based?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 31 of 104 (289251)
02-21-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Garrett
02-21-2006 3:50 PM


Re: Misconceptions
. The problem is you can only infer the verification you seek when you start out with a given set of assumptions.
There are always assumptions. The less the better, and the more verified the validity of your assumptions the better. I contend that macroevolutionary assumptions have been tested and verified as often as is possible, and their validity is fairly certain.
This is in contradiction to YEC assumptions which are in big trouble.
It's a problem of seperating the evidence from the theory.
No, its a problem of developing an explanatory framework (theory) that best explains the evidence.
Reasonable doubt is the key phrase. I've seen no evidence to remove it as of yet
The point is that there is no reasonable doubt about macroevolution, it has so much evidence...every test that has been thrown at it confirms that it happened. It requires FAITH that it didn't, not that it did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 3:50 PM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:20 PM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 32 of 104 (289254)
02-21-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Garrett
02-21-2006 3:56 PM


When you say the YEC position has been falsified, I'm certain you refer to a creationist model that I don't.
I don't refer to any model. I simply can say as FACT that the Universe is NOT young. One clear example can be found in this thread.
If religion is based on faith, science is based on assumptions...I say 6 of one half-dozen of the other.
You might, but that has nothing to do with what I said.
I said
The big difference is in how Science is done as opposed to Religion. Religion starts with answers. Science starts with questions. Science does not require Faith, Religion does.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 3:56 PM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:16 PM jar has replied

  
Garrett
Member (Idle past 6165 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 33 of 104 (289257)
02-21-2006 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
02-21-2006 3:54 PM


If a diety created life, how would you expect it to look. The fact that your interpretation of the design of things leads you to believe that evolution is fact has no bearing on what God's design would look like. I would, for instance, expect homology within many organisms if they all had a common creator...viola!
Of course, you'd turn around and say this evidence supports evolution. Same evidence, different interpretation. All of the evidence you put forth could be equally interpreted in a creationist framework. If something can be equally applied to 2 theories, it isn't valid to suggest it verifies one of them.
For instance, you state that the particular genetic differences between related species are a record of macroevolutionary change. Sure, that's possible. But, again, if God created distinct "kinds" (closer to order or family I would guess) that had the ability to adapt to their environment for survival...this evidence would also fit in that framework. It shows adaptation, but doesn't provide proof of a change from the bird "kind" to the dinosaur "kind". You HAVE to make an assumption to even begin interpreting. Faith and worldview are inseperable.
I do understand uniformitarianism to mean what you stated. You left out the Uniformitarianism with a capital U though ( religious philosophy)...no point in leaving any out. In all seriousness, I do understand the terms (from a scientific standpoint) because I've actually spent time researching theories opposing mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 02-21-2006 3:54 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 4:22 PM Garrett has not replied
 Message 40 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 4:24 PM Garrett has not replied
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 02-21-2006 6:50 PM Garrett has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 34 of 104 (289258)
02-21-2006 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by robinrohan
02-21-2006 3:05 PM


quote:
A lot of the evidence seems circumstantial to me--except for the fossils.
...and the genetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by robinrohan, posted 02-21-2006 3:05 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 02-21-2006 4:20 PM nator has replied

  
Garrett
Member (Idle past 6165 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 35 of 104 (289259)
02-21-2006 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
02-21-2006 4:07 PM


Again...you can only draw conlusions and assumptions from evidence that the earth is not young. I can list dozens of dating methods that point to a young earth...it's just scientists don't use those. It's interesting that the evos are allowed to stray off topic but not I. When I want to talk about dating methods I'll meander over yonder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 02-21-2006 4:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 4:25 PM Garrett has not replied
 Message 43 by jar, posted 02-21-2006 4:29 PM Garrett has replied
 Message 61 by ramoss, posted 02-21-2006 7:56 PM Garrett has not replied
 Message 63 by rgb, posted 02-21-2006 9:14 PM Garrett has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 104 (289262)
02-21-2006 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by nator
02-21-2006 4:13 PM


and the genetics.
I just meant that the evidence seems to be of a kind in which we say, if evolution is true, such-and-such has to be the case. Such-and-such is in fact the case. But this "such-and-such" is not precise enough to be called "predictive" exactly.
It's not like proving the theory of relativity by calculating where a heavenly body should be at a given point in time according to relativity calculations, and then that heavenly body shows up right at the predicted time--which I heard was done. It's not that type of evidence.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-21-2006 03:20 PM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-21-2006 03:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 4:13 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:21 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 44 by nator, posted 02-21-2006 4:31 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 02-21-2006 6:29 PM robinrohan has replied

  
Garrett
Member (Idle past 6165 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 37 of 104 (289263)
02-21-2006 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Modulous
02-21-2006 4:02 PM


Re: Misconceptions
I won't ask you to give me evidence of YEC assumptions that are in big trouble, but I'm certain your YEC assumptions aren't what mine would be to begin with. It's hard to ridicule what someone believes when you don't know what that even is. I'll make time to get to a YEC topic, or set one up if there isn't one....but this topic is interesting to me at the moment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2006 4:02 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2006 4:26 PM Garrett has replied

  
Garrett
Member (Idle past 6165 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 38 of 104 (289264)
02-21-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by robinrohan
02-21-2006 4:20 PM


Hey...an objective thinker...gotta love it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 02-21-2006 4:20 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 104 (289266)
02-21-2006 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:13 PM


quote:
If a diety created life, how would you expect it to look.
It would depend upon the diety.
Right now it looks as though the diety doesn't know what he's doing most of the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:13 PM Garrett has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 104 (289268)
02-21-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:13 PM


quote:
For instance, you state that the particular genetic differences between related species are a record of macroevolutionary change. Sure, that's possible. But, again, if God created distinct "kinds" (closer to order or family I would guess) that had the ability to adapt to their environment for survival...this evidence would also fit in that framework. It shows adaptation, but doesn't provide proof of a change from the bird "kind" to the dinosaur "kind". You HAVE to make an assumption to even begin interpreting. Faith and worldview are inseperable.
There is a thread in which I am asking for definitions of "kind" that I just started which I would be delighted for you to join.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:13 PM Garrett has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 41 of 104 (289269)
02-21-2006 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:16 PM


quote:
I can list dozens of dating methods that point to a young earth...it's just scientists don't use those.
Excellent.
There are many, many threads in the Dates and Dating forum in which you can list these dozens of methods that scientists don't use.
I look forward to learning about them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:16 PM Garrett has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 104 (289270)
02-21-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:20 PM


YEC assumptions and the point of this topic
I won't ask you to give me evidence of YEC assumptions that are in big trouble, but I'm certain your YEC assumptions aren't what mine would be to begin with
How about: The genesis account is a literal history.
hard to ridicule what someone believes when you don't know what that even is
Yes it is, I'm not ridiculing anything here. I'm talking about what Faith is, and whether or not macroevolution requires it. My position is that faith is required when there is no way to verify a conclusion and that macroevolution has many independent ways to verify it therefore it doesn't require faith.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 21-February-2006 09:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:20 PM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:45 PM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 43 of 104 (289272)
02-21-2006 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Garrett
02-21-2006 4:16 PM


Did you read the link that I included?
I can list dozens of dating methods that point to a young earth...it's just scientists don't use those.
Fine, present them in one of the dating threads and let's see if that dog hunts.
The point is that Science does NOT begin with the conclusion but with questions and observations. Religion starts with the Answers and then selects those evidences that may help support the conclusion and discards those that falsify the conclusion.
The whole foundation of science is doubt. Every theory is not just held up for falsification, falsification is encouraged and rewarded.
Doubt, not Faith is the base of Science.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:16 PM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Garrett, posted 02-21-2006 4:36 PM jar has replied
 Message 47 by EZscience, posted 02-21-2006 4:40 PM jar has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 44 of 104 (289273)
02-21-2006 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by robinrohan
02-21-2006 4:20 PM


quote:
I just meant that the evidence seems to be of a kind in which we say, if evolution is true, such-and-such has to be the case. Such-and-such is in fact the case. But this "such-and-such" is not precise enough to be called "predictive" exactly.
Well, it seems as though you are rejecting inference.
Since nearly all science is conducted through inference, that would be a problem.
quote:
It's not like proving the theory of relativity by calculating where a heavenly body should be at a given point in time according to relativity calculations, and then that heavenly body shows up right at the predicted time--which I heard was done. It's not that type of evidence.
The correct analogy would be more along the lines of predicting exactly where, when, and how a given asteroid is going to break up, and also predicting exactly how many pieces it is going to break up into, and what each particle's molecular structure is, and which of them is going to land on Earth, and where.
Etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 02-21-2006 4:20 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Garrett
Member (Idle past 6165 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 45 of 104 (289274)
02-21-2006 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NosyNed
02-21-2006 3:47 PM


Re: forced conclusions
I'm not sure if you're goal was to shock me with this information. But trust me, I'm just as aware of the history of old ages as you are...no need to enlighten me there. The problem is, the discoveries were based on assumptions that may prove to not be true. Faith was tested at that time, I don't question that. What I question is your absolute statement of fact regarding interpretation of evidence.
I wouldn't compromise with the belief in "special creation". I believe in the single 6 day creation event that you mention.
I'll have to go to a YEC thread to defend this position...I don't want to draw the ire of the admins.
The fact is, there are a large group of scientists that are wrong on origins one way or the other. Many PHD scientists, in all specialties, exist that believe in the literal creation account. A scientists interpretation doesn't create fact...some "faith" or "assumption" or whathaveyou is required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 02-21-2006 3:47 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2006 4:41 PM Garrett has not replied
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 02-21-2006 4:49 PM Garrett has 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