Jump to content


Photo

75 Theses.


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#21 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 01 December 2017 - 05:33 PM

The dilemma is obvious. Creating powered aircraft was impossible at some point, but quite feasible.

Ok, we’re just using the terms to mean opposite things.
 

They had a lot to work with, you see. Wind, gravity, aerodynamics, thrust, etc. Al those things can be tinkered with, and we saw that birds can do it. It isn't feasible to create life from non-life because there is nothing to go on. It's never been observed. Cloning at one point was impossible, but feasible because we observe that life does indeed come from life, and there are tangible things to work with such as DNA and reproductive systems.[/font][/color]

There’s life to go on. We know what life is made of and that it’s possible for life to exist, the challenge is figuring out how that arrangement originated.
 
 

The furtherment of science is based on many things, and speculation certainly has its place. Speculation is fine, only it's then that the theories proposed have to be put to the test. Observing a phenomenon and saying "this is how it must have happened" is no good unless it is proven through repeatable experiments that it is indeed how it happened. Using this method, we have unraveled many great mysteries. Like gravity.

How does one prove a supernatural origin of life through repeatable experiments?
 

Science should be objective, and shouldn't care at all what anyone else thinks or why they think it. Objections should be welcome, and if the theory being defended is sound, should be able to disprove the opposition with ease, as was done in the case of Enoch.

Enoch was disproven to the satisfaction of pretty much everyone but Enoch, which is my point. He was a dissenter, but his dissent wasn’t based on anything that had actual scientific merit. He just didn’t know what he was talking about, which led him to be convinced by the arguments of other people who didn’t know what they were talking about.

The idea that an incorrect idea can be easily disproven to the satisfaction of the person with the idea is hilariously incorrect. Convincing someone who has misinterpreted some evidence with other evidence is difficult because if they were able to correctly interpret evidence they probably would have done it right the first time. It’s gets more difficult the more domain-specific knowledge is required to understand the evidence in the first place because that Dunning-Kruger gulf of “I think I know what I’m talking about but I actually don’t” gets wider.
 

However, so many topics and questions here leave the evolutionists speechless.

For me, the speechlessness is usually more “this post(er) isn’t worth the headache of replying to” than lack of an opposing argument.
 
 

If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. "Vast majority of scientists" means absolutely nothing to me, nor should it mean anything to anyone.

Of course it means something to you. There’s absolutely no way you’ve independently verified even a microscopic fraction of the scientific findings you rely on to get through life. At some point, it’s unavoidable you’re going to have to accept the expert judgment of some scientists. I would hope when you have to do that you don’t pick the first source you see and hope it’s correct.

  

Can you guess the percentage of scientists that all agreed that Neanderthal was our ancestor? How about that vast majority of scientists that agreed that Piltdown man was? How about the overwhelming consensus that we had knuckle-walkers in our ancestry? Or the consensus of eugenics and the ensuing tragedy caused by political action based on it?

Going to guess it’s less than the 97% for climate change or 95-98% for evolution and also that when those ideas were supplanted by new ones it was because new evidence indicated a different conclusion, not because the minority successfully filibustered on the existing evidence.
 

Science is a continual process which is rarely conclusive. I thought people understood that.

So why are you suggesting scientists conclude a thing is impossible after 50 years?
  • StormanNorman likes this

#22 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 02 December 2017 - 12:38 AM

The dilemma is obvious. Creating powered aircraft was impossible at some point, but quite feasible.

Ok, we’re just using the terms to mean opposite things. 

They had a lot to work with, you see. Wind, gravity, aerodynamics, thrust, etc. Al those things can be tinkered with, and we saw that birds can do it. It isn't feasible to create life from non-life because there is nothing to go on. It's never been observed. Cloning at one point was impossible, but feasible because we observe that life does indeed come from life, and there are tangible things to work with such as DNA and reproductive systems.[/font][/color]

There’s life to go on. We know what life is made of and that it’s possible for life to exist, the challenge is figuring out how that arrangement originated.  

The furtherment of science is based on many things, and speculation certainly has its place. Speculation is fine, only it's then that the theories proposed have to be put to the test. Observing a phenomenon and saying "this is how it must have happened" is no good unless it is proven through repeatable experiments that it is indeed how it happened. Using this method, we have unraveled many great mysteries. Like gravity.

How does one prove a supernatural origin of life through repeatable experiments? 

Science should be objective, and shouldn't care at all what anyone else thinks or why they think it. Objections should be welcome, and if the theory being defended is sound, should be able to disprove the opposition with ease, as was done in the case of Enoch.

Enoch was disproven to the satisfaction of pretty much everyone but Enoch, which is my point. He was a dissenter, but his dissent wasn’t based on anything that had actual scientific merit. He just didn’t know what he was talking about, which led him to be convinced by the arguments of other people who didn’t know what they were talking about.The idea that an incorrect idea can be easily disproven to the satisfaction of the person with the idea is hilariously incorrect. Convincing someone who has misinterpreted some evidence with other evidence is difficult because if they were able to correctly interpret evidence they probably would have done it right the first time. It’s gets more difficult the more domain-specific knowledge is required to understand the evidence in the first place because that Dunning-Kruger gulf of “I think I know what I’m talking about but I actually don’t” gets wider. 

However, so many topics and questions here leave the evolutionists speechless.

For me, the speechlessness is usually more “this post(er) isn’t worth the headache of replying to” than lack of an opposing argument.  

If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. "Vast majority of scientists" means absolutely nothing to me, nor should it mean anything to anyone.

Of course it means something to you. There’s absolutely no way you’ve independently verified even a microscopic fraction of the scientific findings you rely on to get through life. At some point, it’s unavoidable you’re going to have to accept the expert judgment of some scientists. I would hope when you have to do that you don’t pick the first source you see and hope it’s correct.  

Can you guess the percentage of scientists that all agreed that Neanderthal was our ancestor? How about that vast majority of scientists that agreed that Piltdown man was? How about the overwhelming consensus that we had knuckle-walkers in our ancestry? Or the consensus of eugenics and the ensuing tragedy caused by political action based on it?

Going to guess it’s less than the 97% for climate change or 95-98% for evolution and also that when those ideas were supplanted by new ones it was because new evidence indicated a different conclusion, not because the minority successfully filibustered on the existing evidence. 

Science is a continual process which is rarely conclusive. I thought people understood that.

So why are you suggesting scientists conclude a thing is impossible after 50 years?


".At some point, it’s unavoidable you’re going to have to accept the expert judgment of some scientists."

For Example??


I think that depends on what kind of "Science" you are referring to..

I dont trust people that have been caught fudging the data in order to be able to decide FOR US what is true and what is not.. That is NOT Science to me.. And neither should it be to you..
  • Sleepy House likes this

#23 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,407 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 December 2017 - 04:55 AM

 

 

Popoi: Of course it means something to you (consensus science). There’s absolutely no way you’ve independently verified even a microscopic fraction of the scientific findings you rely on to get through life

 

Yes but the scientific findings he accepts won't be based on consensus science. If I ask why E=MC2 I can get an explanation, what I don't get is people say, "the vast majority of scientists say it's true." But when I ask why macro evolution is true, that is exactly what they argue, because there is nothing you can figure out in the same repeatable way. There is no atom to split for evolution. They rely on the indirect argument, "the vast majority say it's true" and other such generalisations, BECAUSE evolution has no solid arguments.

 

This is why historical science should always be dubious to the critical thinker, for as you say there are many findings (science) we take for granted but thought-experiments alone or observations in the real world, help us to see them to be factual. For example we may take for granted downforce but when we see an F1 car lose it's wing the results are always the say, down force is lost. In the same way we can test other science things we take for granted, even ourselves. We could for example, corner in a bus/coach, at tremendous speed and we would innately know that it would topple over, we would know that if we were turning sharp right, everyone on the bus would likely come across and sit on the seats on the right, because we know that the centripetal force isn't sufficient to keep the bus from the effects of linear momentum, sometimes known by the name of the pseudo-force, "centrifugal force".

 

In the same way, am I going to take germs for granted or animalcules even? Of course, because we have seen them under the microscope, we know there is a tiny world under that scope. In the same way can I accept natural selection will choose those with longer hair in cold climates or choose sickled cells where there is malaria which is rife? Of course it's all measurable.

 

But when it comes to what are basically no more than sophisticated stories that mud became man and big banged tornados in a junkyard assembling 747 jets, well let's face it the matter is nowhere near the same thing, strictly logically speaking we are dealing with historical claims, not scientific claims, and so nobody can from circumstantial evidence, offer us anything as provably factual unless studied in the present, and the present is showing us that no matter how they manipulate the chemistry, life isn't going to spring up in a lab, but please note the same scientists could provably show us in a lab, germs, effects of natural selection in bacteria, effects of various forces, how exotic air does exist, etc...

 

(This is an example of something you never acknowledge or you speak as though you have forgotten the importance of these logical differences. Have you forgotten I linked you to a post by the member, "Hawkins" that explained these differences within science? I don't you even read it, you just try to repeat that evolution and abiogenesis are of the same scientific value but our argument is demonstrably true, there really is a very striking difference between strong science and weak, conjectural, historical stories. Sure - if I am wrong in some way I don't mind being shown that, but I am not aware of any evolutionist having a proper answer to this, which would be qualified by proving us wrong, but how can we be when the difference is so clearly there? So all you can really do is use the rhetorical device known as, "playing it down", and play down the significance of this important difference between operational, repeatable science, and historical hypothesis.)


  • Sleepy House likes this

#24 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 03 December 2017 - 03:56 PM

Yes but the scientific findings he accepts won't be based on consensus science.
If I ask why E=MC2 I can get an explanation, what I don't get is people say, "the vast majority of scientists say it's true.”

That’s ultimately what they mean though. How many of those people could tell you what a Lorentz Transformation is? If you put them in front of two pieces of paper, one with the correct derivation of Einstein’s formula and one with an incorrect derivation, how many of them would be able to identify the correct one? If someone were actively hostile to the very idea of mass-energy equivalence, do you think you’d be able to talk them in to it with your current level of knowledge on the subject?
 

But when I ask why macro evolution is true, that is exactly what they argue, because there is nothing you can figure out in the same repeatable way. There is no atom to split for evolution. They rely on the indirect argument, "the vast majority say it's true" and other such generalisations, BECAUSE evolution has no solid arguments.

No, it’s because most of those conversations aren’t taking place among scientists. The actual arguments require deep dives in to a lot of different topics that most people on forums like this are not all that knowledgable in.

 

This is why historical science should always be dubious to the critical thinker, for as you say there are many findings (science) we take for granted but thought-experiments alone or observations in the real world, help us to see them to be factual. For example we may take for granted downforce but when we see an F1 car lose it's wing the results are always the say, down force is lost. In the same way we can test other science things we take for granted, even ourselves. We could for example, corner in a bus/coach, at tremendous speed and we would innately know that it would topple over, we would know that if we were turning sharp right, everyone on the bus would likely come across and sit on the seats on the right, because we know that the centripetal force isn't sufficient to keep the bus from the effects of linear momentum, sometimes known by the name of the pseudo-force, "centrifugal force”.

The results of science aren’t always easily demonstrable and don’t always fit with the common sense interpretation. Not even all of physics does that. We can understand force interactions on small scales and slow speeds, but something like general relativity contradicts the common sense idea of how things like time work.
 

In the same way, am I going to take germs for granted or animalcules even? Of course, because we have seen them under the microscope, we know there is a tiny world under that scope. In the same way can I accept natural selection will choose those with longer hair in cold climates or choose sickled cells where there is malaria which is rife? Of course it's all measurable.

Who’s “we”? Did you specifically see them, or are you relying on someone else telling you what they saw?

This is an example of something you never acknowledge or you speak as though you have forgotten the importance of these logical differences.

It’s because those differences aren’t as important as you’re trying to make them seem. It’s another argument on the “consensus science” pile of things that mostly non-scientists think about how science works that don’t reflect what actual scientists do.

I don’t really buy that you believe that historical science is invalid either, given that you’ve argued in other threads that there can be such a thing as evidence for a flood.[/font]




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users