Post Reply
Page 19 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Religious extremists at it again.....
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 8:35PM #181
jane2
Posts: 14,295

lucaspa


Hogwash.......................

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 8:42PM #182
mountain_man
Posts: 39,076

Apr 9, 2012 -- 8:32PM, lucaspa wrote:

It is also in no way establishing its validity.  Once again, theories are general statements about the physical universe or some portion of it.  Theories can be:
1. Untested
2. Tested and supported
3. Tested and falsified.


The facts, the data, for evolution and they have been proven true. Evolution is a fact. That humans and other animals, plants and insects, on this Earth evolved is a fact. Not a "theory" but a fact. Evolution has been so soundly supported by all the facts that the only objections are religious, not scientific. Denying evolution is the exact same as denying the Earth is round.


This, unfortunately, needs to be qualified a couple of ways.  "Evolution" is really at least 5 theories lumped under one heading....


No, sorry. Evolution is one "theory"; change over time. That the species on this planet have changed over time is an indisputable fact that has been proven by the preponderance of the evidence. Only the religious object.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 8:45PM #183
mountain_man
Posts: 39,076

Apr 9, 2012 -- 8:19PM, lucaspa wrote:

That does not always happen. For instance, has heliocentrism as a theory for the organization of our solar system been expanded "into something better"?  How about the theory that DNA exists in a double helix?


That's not a 'theory' but a fact.


...Flood Geology is in that list.  So is young earth.  And so is creationism....


Sorry, religious claims so not count as a "scientific theory." They are not based in any way on any scientific method. They are claims based on religious dogma, not science.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 8:47PM #184
lucaspa
Posts: 557

Apr 9, 2012 -- 7:08PM, mountain_man wrote:

In science a theory is: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. (Source)



That was only one of the definitions given by your source. Smile  The definition right after is: "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation"


Now, quick testing of the first definition shows that not all theories fit the "commonly regarded as correct".  Think of String Theory, Multiverse, Hawking's No Boundary Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity Theory, etc.  NONE of those are "commonly regarded as correct", yet they are all scientific theories.  What the first definition refers to are theories that have been tested and supported.  The second refers to theories that have not been tested.  And your source left out theories that have been falsified, such as phlogiston theory or Modified Newtonian Dynamics Theory.


What happened is that people wanted to answer the "just a theory" criticism of evoution.  However, in the process they mangled "theory" and introduced a concept that has just as many problems.


 No, they are not. They are using the wrong definition, often on purpose and dishonestly. They are trying to use; a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. (same source)



But didn't you do the same thing?  Sauce for the goose.


Evolution has been proven beyond a doubt.



It's not correct to use the phrase "proven beyond a doubt" in science.  That is because, strictly speaking, we can't "prove" by either inductive or deductive reasoning.  That's one reason why science is always tentative.  What you can say is the creationism has been disproven beyond a doubt. 


Those two definitions cannot be used for the same word at the same time.



Oh, they can be used for the same WORD.  It's just that a theory cannot be in 2 states at the same time.   A theory cannot be supported AND falsified or untested AND supported at the same time.  It is only 1 of the 3 at any given time.  And the status can (and for most theories, HAS) changed over time as new data have been found.


But yes, evolution is a theory that has been repeatedly tested and supported.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."  Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 8:50PM #185
lucaspa
Posts: 557

Apr 9, 2012 -- 8:35PM, jane2 wrote:


lucaspa


Hogwash.......................




Jane2, denial, especially ad hominem denial, are worthless in a discussion. First, I said several things,  so we don't even know what specifically you consider "hogwash".  Second, calling it "hogwash" doesn't make it so.  You must SHOW that it is "hogwash" by evidence and reason.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."  Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 9:05PM #186
lucaspa
Posts: 557

Apr 9, 2012 -- 8:42PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 9, 2012 -- 8:32PM, lucaspa wrote:

It is also in no way establishing its validity.  Once again, theories are general statements about the physical universe or some portion of it.  Theories can be:
1. Untested
2. Tested and supported
3. Tested and falsified.


The facts, the data, for evolution and they have been proven true. Evolution is a fact. That humans and other animals, plants and insects, on this Earth evolved is a fact. Not a "theory" but a fact. Evolution has been so soundly supported by all the facts that the only objections are religious, not scientific. Denying evolution is the exact same as denying the Earth is round.



Smile"the earth is round" is also a theory.  Yes, the data strongly support evolution.  Evolution is such a strongly supported theory that we (provisionally) accept it as true.  Just as we (provisionally) accept that the earth is round.   But to say "not a 'theory', but a fact" is not correct.  This is not opposition to evolution on my part. My posts make plain that I accept evolution.  This is in defense of what science is and how it works.  I don't want science hijacked by ardent supporters of evolution anymore than I want it hijacked by creationists.


I strongly agree that the only people who refuse to accept evolution as (provisionally) true are doing so for emotional (in this case religious) reasons.  However, refusal to accept theories is hardly new in science.  There were phlogiston chemists who went to their grave without accepting oxygen combustion.  Einstein never accepted indeterminancy ("God does not throw dice."). Lorentz never accepted that the aether was falsified, etc.


No, sorry. Evolution is one "theory"; change over time.



Not really, not when you examine it closely.  Trying argue what evolution is with the evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr (one of the founders of the Modern Synthesis) is futile.  You really don't have the knowledge base to do that, Mountain Man. 


That the species on this planet have changed over time is an indisputable fact


That is the "nonconstancy of species" (#1 in the list) theory.  It is supported by so much data that we (provisionally) accept it as true, as "fact".  Now, if you object to that (provisionally), I will refer you to another evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould. He says ""Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world.  ... Evolutionist make no claim for perpetual truth ... In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent.' "  SJ Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Science and Creationism ed. by Ashley Montagu, pp 118-119.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."  Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 9:15PM #187
lucaspa
Posts: 557

Apr 9, 2012 -- 8:45PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 9, 2012 -- 8:19PM, lucaspa wrote:

That does not always happen. For instance, has heliocentrism as a theory for the organization of our solar system been expanded "into something better"?  How about the theory that DNA exists in a double helix?


That's not a 'theory' but a fact.


No, both of those are theories.  They are very well supported theories, but they are not what are considered "facts" in science:


bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol1.html

"Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed."


The observations for DNA as a double helix are the x-ray cystallograms and the changes in light transmission when DNA is heated.  The theory to explain those observations are that DNA exists in a double helix.


[quote]...lucaspa: "Flood Geology is in that list.  So is young earth.  And so is creationism.."


 Sorry, religious claims so not count as a "scientific theory." They are not based in any way on any scientific method. They are claims based on religious dogma, not science.



Theories are not digests of observations.  They are not the result of the scientific method. They are the beginning of the scientific method. You start with hypothesis/theory in the scientific method.  Theories are inventive statements that are advanced so they can be tested:
""I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation."  Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963 p 38.


It doesn't matter where the inspiration comes from for those inventions.  The inspiration can come from tangential observations.  Or it can come from politics, economics (Malthus' writings inspired Darwin to come up with natural selection), or even religion.


Flood Geology, young earth, and the special creation of species were all proposed by scientists of the time.  Go back to the publications of the scientific societies around 1800 and you will see scientific papers espousing all three.  They were all tested like ANY theory (including evolution) is tested.   However, in this case the observations eventually clashed with the theories and they were falsified.  The book Genesis and Geology by Gillespie has references to many of the papers.


Mountain Man, you are dogmatically sticking to the claim that any "religious claim" cannot be a scientific theory.  Yet I have shown you data that the claim is wrong. What happened to that "rational" in your signature?  Why are you dogmatically sticking to a claim when that claim is falsified by the facts? What purpose (religious or otherwise) does the claim serve for you?

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."  Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 9:35PM #188
arielg
Posts: 9,116

Apr 9, 2012 -- 8:19PM, lucaspa wrote:


Apr 9, 2012 -- 1:53PM, arielg wrote:


They are al theories.  Some of them explain phenomena   for a while until a more encompassing theory comes along that expresses it better. The new theory is unquestioned  "reality" for a while. Until the next one expands  into something  better.



That does not always happen. For instance, has heliocentrism as a theory for the organization of our solar system been expanded "into something better"?  How about the theory that DNA exists in a double helix? 


Then of course there are the falsified theories.  They stay in the falsified list because the data that falsified them to begin with never goes away.  Flood Geology is in that list.  So is young earth.  And so is creationism.  I know of some creationists who hope that some new and "better" theory will replace evolution.  What they don't realize is that the replacement theory will never be creationism.




Not yet. What are called "facts" are  theories accepted as reality.


Theories are not just about scientific observations.


A theory is a mental construction that explains reality from a certain point of view.  Out of an infinite number of possibilities, a particular point of view is  taken  and the observation  is  conditioned by that point of view.


All scientific theories are constructed on a dualistic point of view. Science requires an  observation to be divided between the observer and the observed. The observer must  remove himself from the observed. It  is called "objectivity". 


But that approach can only go so far. There is no such division in life. Even quatum theory realizes that what is observed is influenced by the observer.  


So, scientific observations can only go so far and  further observations  requires the unity of the observer and the observed.  And that is the realm of religion.   Where science ends, religion begins. An individual perceives according to what he is.


We explain the world with our theories. It is what allows us to make sense of reality.  But the theories we use to make sense of the world are created by us.  We project what we later discover.  Sages have known for ages that the world is our projection.


What do you think?






 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 9:39PM #189
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Apr 9, 2012 -- 8:50PM, lucaspa wrote:


Apr 9, 2012 -- 8:35PM, jane2 wrote:


lucaspa


Hogwash.......................




Jane2, denial, especially ad hominem denial, are worthless in a discussion. First, I said several things,  so we don't even know what specifically you consider "hogwash".  Second, calling it "hogwash" doesn't make it so.  You must SHOW that it is "hogwash" by evidence and reason.




My comment was not ad hominem, simply my reaction to your posts. Do you know what ad hominem actually means--doesn't seem as if you do.


I need not SHOW anything. I'm uninterested in what you post because it goes on and on and makes no sense. I graduated with a degree in English Lit, with studies in classic Latin and in theology and philosophy from a Catholic college in 1960--at 20; the theory of evolution was a mainstay.




 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 10:51PM #190
TemplarS
Posts: 6,693

Apr 9, 2012 -- 9:35PM, arielg wrote:


All scientific theories are constructed on a dualistic point of view. Science requires an  observation to be divided between the observer and the observed. The observer must  remove himself from the observed. It  is called "objectivity". 


But that approach can only go so far. There is no such division in life. Even quatum theory realizes that what is observed is influenced by the observer.  





This is true, but so broad as to be of little use;  and there are degrees of influence and limits as to how this can be applied.


The observer will always allow his prejudices, conscious and unconscious, to influence the way he conducts his observations, or draws general principles, or theories, from his observations.  So, for example, different paleontologists will look at the hominid fossil record, and interpret H. Habilis and H. Ergaster and H. Erectus in different ways, and maybe more fossils will be discovered which will clear this up and maybe not.  But, reasonably, no amount of observer interpretation is going to make Homo Habilis into an ancestor of chimps as opposed to humans. 


But, as it happens, observation does have a way of turning things quite round without regard to the prejudices of previous scientists.  Newton theorized that light was a particle and Hooke a wave; neither could have imagined a quantum theory which would prove them both right.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 19 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook