I posted: That is true. And this is why you generally don’t see scientists speaking of truth (Truth, TRVTH). You see them dealing with facts and well-tested and well-supported theories. Scientists rely on the scientific method, not on revelation.
You posted: There are two kinds of science:
1) observation science, which involves observable, repeatable results
2) origins science, which no one saw, because we weren’t there, and it’s not happening today
You can’t apply the scientific method towards studying the origins of the earth the way you can apply it to testing a drug for efficacy.
My comment: I don't think those two definitions are accurate. Science applies the scientific method. That involves a mix of data and theory, with both being subjected to tests and verification, and possibly to falsification. In some cases the data are better than in other cases, but the methods are the same. If the ideas are really tentative, they are better described as hypotheses or models (see my FR homepage for a long list of definitions of terms as they are generally uses in science).
Even if there was nobody there to see an event, we can still learn a lot about it. That doesn't make it a "lesser" kind of science as long as the scientific method is used.
The disaster that doomed the dinosaurs is not on film anywhere, but we can see the effects and there is evidence, such as the iridium layer at that time period, that leads to some pretty good conclusions.
I posted: As Heinlein noted:
Belief gets in the way of learning.You posted: Does your belief in the laws of gravity or mathematics get in the way of your learning? There must be a structure of truth/fact throughout the course of learning.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
My comment: If I had a specific belief in how gravity or mathematics must be it would be difficult to learn anything to the contrary.
Scientists generally don't use the term "truth" but rather choose to rely on the evidence and our best interpretations of that evidence. Truth is a matter best left to divine revelation and other similar fields.
Belief does get in the way of learning. We see creationists on these threads who will not admit to any facts that go against their religious beliefs, no matter how well those facts are documented. The matter of the global flood is a good example. Early geologists, pretty much all creationists, gave up on finding evidence of a global flood about 1830. The age of the earth is another example. Young earth creationists simply cannot accept any other scenario, and so resort to the silliest contortions of science in order to make reality conform to their beliefs.
I posted: How would you like it if I responded in kind? For example, I could say your God is a baby-killer and practices genocide. And I could cite the global flood and the first-borns of Egypt, among many other examples for this. And it would get us nowhere.
You posted: God gave life, so he is free to take it away. Your criticism of God that he somehow is wrong for taking back what he owns and gave, is like me criticizing you for ...
1) owning the $20 bill in your pocket
2) putting it on the table
3) and finally, putting it back into your pocket
... and calling you a thief for taking back what was yours all along! Who did you steal it from? Nobody! And yet you accuse God of taking back what was and is and will be always his?
My comment: I think you got off track on this one. I was responding to your comment
You should consider re-considering your world-view/biases if you share a point of view (atheism/evolution) shared by the abortionist/homosexual/PC/Communists/Nazis, which gives them license to kill indiscriminately, whether people or babies or innocence.Upthread I replied:
How would you like it if I responded in kind? For example, I could say your God is a baby-killer and practices genocide. And I could cite the global flood and the first-borns of Egypt, among many other examples for this. And it would get us nowhere.You attacked me with a comparison to "abortionist/homosexual/PC/Communists/Nazis" and I simply responded with a similarly scathing remark as an example and suggested that we don't go there.Perhaps you could leave the ad hominem attacks aside and we could debate the scientific issues on their merits, as the scientific issues are what I am trying to deal with.
You posted: My response to those who claim in the name of “science” that evolution is “fact” ...
1) the “scientists” didn’t see it
2) because the “scientists” were not there
3) and it (evolution) is not happening today
... and yet, the core of the scientific method, is that conclusions are drawn from *observable* results that are published and thus *reproducible* by other scientists. No scientist has ever *observed* the evolution of a species from another.
My comment: Evolution consists of two parts: the fact that the genome changes from one generation to the next, and the theory of how that change happens. The theory seeks to explain the observed facts.
Science doesn't need to "see" something to know something about it. Ever pinch an electron? Ever pin a tail on a wavicle?
But science has seen the evolution from one species to another--its pretty common. You can even see it with all the intermediate steps still intact. Google "ring species" and look at some of the examples. A ring species is one which forms around some natural barrier, a mountain or valley, for example. The individual populations can all interbreed one to the next, but coming full circle, closing the ring, the beginning and end populations can't interbreed. And that is the definition of a species.
And what makes you think evolution is not happening today? Evolution generally happens slowly, so slowly you wouldn't normally notice it. But how about bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics? How about the discovery a few generations back of bacteria that thrive on nylon? Third molars (that's slow, but who knows where it might lead)? What is HIV doing to the genome? How about radiation levels? What are they doing? I sure wouldn't want to bet the rent money that evolution has stopped!
You posted: The definition of “evolution” being specifically: emergence of new species of animals genetically distinct from the one they evolved from, and thus unable to mate with the species they evolved from, and yet able to reproduce.
My comment: That is not an accepted definition of evolution. Here is one which is more accurate:
Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next.(You can get this and other definitions by googling "define:evolution").
What you posted is closer to the definition of a species.
Evolution is the process, species (given some time) are a result. Pretty much as Darwin said 150 years ago, eh?
Out of time. See you downthread.
>Even if there was nobody there to see an event, we can still
>learn a lot about it. That doesn’t make it a “lesser” kind
>of science as long as the scientific method is used.
I’m not saying observation science (grounded in the scientific method) is greater or lesser than origins science. I’m just saying that observation science results in hard facts, and repeatable conclusions not possible with origins science. No one living was there, and there is no Cambrian Explosion happening today to demonstrate species of that quantity and diversity just spring up without special creation.
Creationists and Evolutionists have the same data (fossils, carbon dating) and draw different conclusions from it because they interpret it differently, because they start with different presuppositions. Please see http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp for more details.
>The matter of the global flood is a good example. Early
>geologists, pretty much all creationists, gave up on
>finding evidence of a global flood about 1830.
Do a google for “fossil graveyard” and let me know what you think. Dinosaurs and mammals getting buried together with dozens of other species, all over the world, even in deserts, testify strongly to a global flood.
>The age of the earth is another example. Young earth >creationists simply cannot accept any other scenario, and
>so resort to the silliest contortions of science in order
>to make reality conform to their beliefs.
Just as Adam and Eve were created fully mature, so was the universe. Is it not possible for God to have created the universe fully mature, if he created Adam and Eve fully mature?
>I think you got off track on this one. I was responding to
>your comment ... ... I simply responded with a similarly
>scathing remark as an example and suggested that we don’t
>go there.
That’s fine. I don’t think your knocks against God were scathing at all. You just don’t understand the Bible, so such things you charged God with seem monstrous, but are plainly not.
I still think you should carefully examine the fruits of those who share your atheistic/evolutionary world view, and consider what you are doing to yourself, and where you are going given this world-view.
They embrace death. At least 100 million people have died in the 20th century at the hands of Communism. Whether that figure counts those lost to abortion, I know not.
>Science doesn’t need to “see” something to know something
>about it. Ever pinch an electron?
Indeed, no one has seen an electron, yet we know it’s charge and mass. But such results are derived from tests with repeatable results in laboratories worldwide.
I’ve never seen a lizard sprout wings, I’ve never seen a cow grow a fin, etc. Those are some of the observable events that would make evolution an observable scientific fact. But it has not happened in recorded history.
>You can even see it with all the intermediate steps still
>intact. Google “ring species” and look at some of the
>examples.
Please see http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/bird.asp for the creationist answer. No new information was generated by the process that created populations that can’t interbreed.
>But how about bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics?
If 1% of a species are resistant to a drug, then 99% dies because of the drug, did the bacteria “evolve”?
>How about the discovery a few generations back of bacteria
>that thrive on nylon?
Please check out #67 and #68 from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3880.asp?vPrint=1. I think it also addresses the previous point.
>What is HIV doing to the genome?
Kills everybody, so it limits growth of populations that routinely engage in risky behavior.
>How about radiation levels?
It’s not increasing the complexity of genetic information. It only decreases it.
>Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s,
>evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in
>the frequency of alleles in a population from one
>generation to the next.
Agreed. But where does new genetic information come from? This is the crux of why Michael Behe is such a pain in the anti-design crowd’s collective behind.