Jump to content


Photo

My Question

Validity of Evolution

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
50 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 February 2012 - 06:50 AM

I have a question to all evolutionists, it is vital to the entire theory of evolution since it is questioning its validity of actual science. I would really like to hear an actual answer to this, this is not the first time I have posted this question up and I haven't received an actual answer to it, so please contact your smartest buddies and lets find out an answer... It is a 3 tiered question so please bear with me.


What was the empirical evidence that Darwin gave when he first introduced the theory of evolution? By empirical, I use the dictionary definition- guided by experiment, (thus implying direct observation, repeatability, falsification as conditional characters to the definition of empirical). Furthermore, how was the hypothesis of the evidence tested in a laboratory?

If the answer is none, I will allow an extension to evidence from after Darwin. Please note that this must also be empirical, (directly observable, repeatable and falsifiable), with no presumption or inference or assumption of evolution to being true, (since as we know assumptions are not scientific since science deals with the facts, not guesses).

As a follow up question, if there is no empirical evidence of Darwinian evolution in its first inception, or after Darwin. How can evolutionists claim that evolution is scientific, when the tenets of the scientific method requires empirical viability and verification?



Good luck!

#2 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 16 February 2012 - 11:37 AM

Isn't On The Origin of Species available in your school library ?
It's probably available in mine and I never read it, so I might take the chance to remedy that and answer over the week-end. But if you're really curious it's always best to go to the primary sources yourself...

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 February 2012 - 11:59 AM

Isn't On The Origin of Species available in your school library ?
It's probably available in mine and I never read it, so I might take the chance to remedy that and answer over the week-end. But if you're really curious it's always best to go to the primary sources yourself...


Thanks

I'm also interested in the empirical testing of Darwin's ideas as well as the ideas themselves. His book only contains the ideas, rather than the empirical testing that should have occurred, if this were to be deemed scientific.

#4 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:09 PM

is it really hard to track some animals or bacteria and then let it or they multiply and take samples and record the changes then come up with an observation that either confroms or denies the hypothesis?

if macro takes eons then we really cant do that now can we so we cant observe it nor test it.

#5 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:47 PM

is it really hard to track some animals or bacteria and then let it or they multiply and take samples and record the changes then come up with an observation that either confroms or denies the hypothesis?

Not hard at all. That's been done multiple times on different animals and bacteria. They tend to change in ways perfectly consistent with the theory of evolution.

if macro takes eons then we really cant do that now can we so we cant observe it nor test it.

How do you define "macro" ? In practice people who oppose evolution tend to define it as "whatever takes too much time to be observed", so it "can't be observed" for rather trivial reasons. Some of the other more rigorous definitions that are around, such as "creation of a new species" or "arising of a novel trait", have been observed.

@Gilbo : I'm rather surprised at that since I heard he devoted quite a lot of time to the evidence in his book, but I'll know more when I've read it. In the meantime I do have a question : by your definition of "empirical evidence", is there any empirical evidence for astronomy ?

#6 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 16 February 2012 - 04:00 PM

how do i define macro as one from kingdom to another, and no its not been observed. the yeast remained yeast and the hiv virus with its fastest rate at the limit of evolution hasnt mutated with new functions.



http://opinionator.b...lving-mistakes/

theres not a new species of influenza a each year but a new strain that is resistant but its not called a new species of virus.

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 February 2012 - 04:30 PM

Not hard at all. That's been done multiple times on different animals and bacteria. They tend to change in ways perfectly consistent with the theory of evolution.


How do you define "macro" ? In practice people who oppose evolution tend to define it as "whatever takes too much time to be observed", so it "can't be observed" for rather trivial reasons. Some of the other more rigorous definitions that are around, such as "creation of a new species" or "arising of a novel trait", have been observed.

@Gilbo : I'm rather surprised at that since I heard he devoted quite a lot of time to the evidence in his book, but I'll know more when I've read it. In the meantime I do have a question : by your definition of "empirical evidence", is there any empirical evidence for astronomy ?



The creation of new species is NOT an invention created by evolution critics it is the central idea in Darwin's book. He postulated that life was not created within its own kinds- ie dogs are dogs and can only ever be dogs.. Darwin postulated that life originated from a single ancestor and that all the forms of life evolved from there. (Thus directly implying that new species are created)

As I heard it, Darwin spent alot of time Rhetorically giving "evidence" of his claims. One such "evidence" was the contrast of farmers, and claiming well if farmers can do it why not God, (yes he says God, at first evolution was theistic evolution). However this is not empirical evidence, you cannot confirm this with experiment hence his "evidence" here is not evidence, but merely an opinion.... Which is not scientific....

#8 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 17 February 2012 - 03:54 AM

how do i define macro as one from kingdom to another, and no its not been observed. the yeast remained yeast and the hiv virus with its fastest rate at the limit of evolution hasnt mutated with new functions.

If you define it as change between kingdoms then indeed macro hasn't been observed, unless you count transitions from unicellular to multicellular or vice-versa.
Note that by that definition non-human apes evolving into humans wouldn't be macro.

theres not a new species of influenza a each year but a new strain that is resistant but its not called a new species of virus.

The species concept isn't defined the same way for organisms that reproduce asexually such as bacteria or viruses.

The creation of new species is NOT an invention created by evolution critics it is the central idea in Darwin's book.

Where did I suggest the creation of new species was invented by evolution critics ? I was talking about "macro-evolution". If you define it as "the creation of new species", and define "species" the way biologists do, then macro-evolution has been observed. Most creationists I've seen either define macro-evolution differently, or define "species" differently (which comes down to defining macro-evolution differently).

As I heard it, Darwin spent alot of time Rhetorically giving "evidence" of his claims. One such "evidence" was the contrast of farmers, and claiming well if farmers can do it why not God, (yes he says God, at first evolution was theistic evolution). However this is not empirical evidence, you cannot confirm this with experiment hence his "evidence" here is not evidence, but merely an opinion.... Which is not scientific....

You didn't answer my question though. Is there any empirical evidence for astronomy ?

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 February 2012 - 06:03 AM

If you define it as change between kingdoms then indeed macro hasn't been observed, unless you count transitions from unicellular to multicellular or vice-versa.
Note that by that definition non-human apes evolving into humans wouldn't be macro.


The species concept isn't defined the same way for organisms that reproduce asexually such as bacteria or viruses.


Where did I suggest the creation of new species was invented by evolution critics ? I was talking about "macro-evolution". If you define it as "the creation of new species", and define "species" the way biologists do, then macro-evolution has been observed. Most creationists I've seen either define macro-evolution differently, or define "species" differently (which comes down to defining macro-evolution differently).

You didn't answer my question though. Is there any empirical evidence for astronomy ?

If you define it as change between kingdoms then indeed macro hasn't been observed, unless you count transitions from unicellular to multicellular or vice-versa.
Note that by that definition non-human apes evolving into humans wouldn't be macro.


The species concept isn't defined the same way for organisms that reproduce asexually such as bacteria or viruses.


Where did I suggest the creation of new species was invented by evolution critics ? I was talking about "macro-evolution". If you define it as "the creation of new species", and define "species" the way biologists do, then macro-evolution has been observed. Most creationists I've seen either define macro-evolution differently, or define "species" differently (which comes down to defining macro-evolution differently).

You didn't answer my question though. Is there any empirical evidence for astronomy ?


Firstly your astronomy question is a red herring, hence I didn't answer it.

Unicellular to multicellular has not been observed. If you think the "study" done using a centrifuge to squish yeast cells together and then claim that it is now a multicelluar organism, is absolute baloney, and is devoid of any logical thinking whatsoever.

Then the species concept is not something to be relied on then isn't it, if it is arbitrary and cannot fit everything


Sorry I misinterpreted your post 5

#10 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 17 February 2012 - 07:07 AM

Firstly your astronomy question is a red herring, hence I didn't answer it.

How is it a red herring ? I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "empirical evidence" and "real science".

Unicellular to multicellular has not been observed. If you think the "study" done using a centrifuge to squish yeast cells together and then claim that it is now a multicelluar organism, is absolute baloney, and is devoid of any logical thinking whatsoever.

There are also things like Volvox. But again, telling whether something counts as a transition from "unicellular" to "multicellular" again relies on what your operational definition of "unicellular" and "multicellular" is. How do you define those things ?

Then the species concept is not something to be relied on then isn't it, if it is arbitrary and cannot fit everything

Nonsense. Every definition has its domain of application, and most definitions have borderline cases that cannot be unambiguously classified. And there are tons of words that have different meanings in different contexts. "Leg" is a concept that isn't defined the same way for bacteria as it is for some other organisms, and so is "s@x". Are those concepts that "can't be relied on" ?

Note that the fact that all ways of grouping organisms are fuzzy and even arbitrary to some extent ("species" is probably the least arbitrary, especially among animals, but it is quite fuzzy around the edges - cf ring species, cases where different-looking populations can interbreed and identical-looking populations can't, and so on) is exactly what you'd expect from the hypothesis that species aren't immutable and are inter-related.

Sorry I misinterpreted your post 5

No worries ^^

#11 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 February 2012 - 07:23 AM

How is it a red herring ? I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "empirical evidence" and "real science".


There are also things like Volvox. But again, telling whether something counts as a transition from "unicellular" to "multicellular" again relies on what your operational definition of "unicellular" and "multicellular" is. How do you define those things ?


Nonsense. Every definition has its domain of application, and most definitions have borderline cases that cannot be unambiguously classified. And there are tons of words that have different meanings in different contexts. "Leg" is a concept that isn't defined the same way for bacteria as it is for some other organisms, and so is "s@x". Are those concepts that "can't be relied on" ?

Note that the fact that all ways of grouping organisms are fuzzy and even arbitrary to some extent ("species" is probably the least arbitrary, especially among animals, but it is quite fuzzy around the edges - cf ring species, cases where different-looking populations can interbreed and identical-looking populations can't, and so on) is exactly what you'd expect from the hypothesis that species aren't immutable and are inter-related.


No worries ^^

1. How is it a red herring ? I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "empirical evidence" and "real science".


2. There are also things like Volvox. But again, telling whether something counts as a transition from "unicellular" to "multicellular" again relies on what your operational definition of "unicellular" and "multicellular" is. How do you define those things ?


Nonsense. Every definition has its domain of application, and most definitions have borderline cases that cannot be unambiguously classified. And there are tons of words that have different meanings in different contexts. "Leg" is a concept that isn't defined the same way for bacteria as it is for some other organisms, and so is "s@x". Are those concepts that "can't be relied on" ?

Note that the fact that all ways of grouping organisms are fuzzy and even arbitrary to some extent ("species" is probably the least arbitrary, especially among animals, but it is quite fuzzy around the edges - cf ring species, cases where different-looking populations can interbreed and identical-looking populations can't, and so on) is exactly what you'd expect from the hypothesis that species aren't immutable and are inter-related.


No worries ^^


1. Perhaps re-read the OP.....

2.

Uni-cellular = an organism that is composed of a single cell
Multi-cellular = an organism that is composed of multiple cells.Which has cases of cell specialisation and reproduces as a muti-cellular entity.

The paper attempts at "cell specialisation" claiming that apoptosis was specialisation of the cells....Huh? Apoptosis is cell suicide, how can anyone claim that as cell specialisation. Furthermore it may not have been apoptosis at all it may have just been cells dying due to decreased fitness or due to the pressures of the centrifuge bursting them etc.

Furthermore when it reproduced bits and pieces broke off, showing that the blob of cells was not a multicellular organism, rather just a blob of seperate cells and when the inner cells reproduced they would push out the outer ones.... However this is glossed over as an "adaption" whereby it apparently is an attempt by the cells of propagating new "multi-cellular" organisms.... Yet what happens when you take away the centrifuge to these new "multicelluar" organisms? They would disperse over time, (since most cells are sticky due to biofilms), thus proving that they are not multi-cellular.

Furthermore using a centrifuge is not a great representation of "reality". I guess it begs the question what came first the centrifuge or the multicellular life? The only line of "evidence" they have in claiming that this is now a multi-cellular entity is that its a blob of many cells.... So with that logic I can squish a banana into an apple and call that a new species? Or how about surgically attaching a dog and a cat together? Mushing separate things together doesn't make it a single entity, even a child knows this....

Seriously I cannot comprehend how this paper got through peer-review or is it published in a non-peer reviewed magazine? In my opinion it is THE worst paper I have ever read, I only read part of it, (the parts I have discussed here), as I was so annoyed that I refused to read the rest.


But the fact remains that it is an arbitrary MAN-MADE classification system, we cannot prove that this system is a 100% truthful depiction of reality, (due to the fuzzy stuff), hence I personally would "take it with a grain of salt"

#12 hugenot

hugenot

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 17 February 2012 - 03:21 PM

Isn't On The Origin of Species available in your school library ?
It's probably available in mine and I never read it, so I might take the chance to remedy that and answer over the week-end. But if you're really curious it's always best to go to the primary sources yourself...


Darwin was not even a scientist! Science and evolution are two different things. They have been mixed to deceive people. Science is something we can see, test and demonstrate, evolution only gives us things that have to be believed by faith! Then it is a religion, and a dangerous religion at it, filling countries who are not careful like France will milloons of people completely hypnotised by this theory. The results? People filled with lies, wickedness and inability to believe the Word of God as it speaks! Amazing! http://www.bible-tub...la-creation.php

#13 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 20 February 2012 - 01:55 PM

Okay, so... I spent all week-end playing Skyrim instead of reading the Origin of Species, like a good evilutionist should. Or working for that matter. So that happened :P

I still intend to read the book, I borrowed it and everything after all, but who knows when that will be so chances are I won't answer this after all. Sorry about that.

#14 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 20 February 2012 - 02:32 PM

if macro takes eons then we really cant do that now can we so we cant observe it nor test it.



I've ran across an example of how we can test the Big Bang scientifically through observation which made sense to me. I discovered the example while doing some research on historical science and how it has merit within science. They see the Big Bang as an event that happened, which we have described using a model, and for which we have made predictions (background radiation, redshift). The experiment itself is not the Big Bang but the measurement of CBR for instance which is observable and repeatable. I must admit that I agree with that. It does have merit and it does meet the requirement in my book. They also propose that even if we recreate a 'big bang' in a lab, this wouldn't prove the big bang took place so we need to rely on that kind of science to make observations about our past. I take it the same is true for macro-evolution.

What do you think of this explanation?

#15 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 February 2012 - 06:40 PM

I've ran across an example of how we can test the Big Bang scientifically through observation which made sense to me. I discovered the example while doing some research on historical science and how it has merit within science. They see the Big Bang as an event that happened, which we have described using a model, and for which we have made predictions (background radiation, redshift). The experiment itself is not the Big Bang but the measurement of CBR for instance which is observable and repeatable. I must admit that I agree with that. It does have merit and it does meet the requirement in my book. They also propose that even if we recreate a 'big bang' in a lab, this wouldn't prove the big bang took place so we need to rely on that kind of science to make observations about our past. I take it the same is true for macro-evolution.

What do you think of this explanation?

I've ran across an example of how we can test the Big Bang scientifically through observation which made sense to me. I discovered the example while doing some research on historical science and how it has merit within science. They see the Big Bang as an event that happened, which we have described using a model, and for which we have made predictions (background radiation, redshift). The experiment itself is not the Big Bang but the measurement of CBR for instance which is observable and repeatable. I must admit that I agree with that. It does have merit and it does meet the requirement in my book. They also propose that even if we recreate a 'big bang' in a lab, this wouldn't prove the big bang took place so we need to rely on that kind of science to make observations about our past. I take it the same is true for macro-evolution.

What do you think of this explanation?


Such inference based "science" is always employed for things that we cannot test empirically.

I would take this "with a grain of salt" since we have no idea whether the model, (which is a man made invention), is in fact a true representation of reality. It isn't reliable, despite what we get told at school and university.


There have been plenty of times when our interpretation of an event, or supposed event was totally wrong, because we didn't have the whole picture

#16 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:06 PM

Such inference based "science" is always employed for things that we cannot test empirically.

Is that a case of "inference based science" though ?

"As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."

Isn't the CBR a consequence of the Big Bang that was arrived at using mathematics and logic ? (The Big Bang theory is fundamentally a mathematical model that's based on general relativity)

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:15 PM

Is that a case of "inference based science" though ?

"As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."

Isn't the CBR a consequence of the Big Bang that was arrived at using mathematics and logic ? (The Big Bang theory is fundamentally a mathematical model that's based on general relativity)


Perhaps in terms of the BB, however that is all based on the assumption that what is occurring now has always occurred. However read the next sentence, you would need "observable ramifications", also assuming that such ramifications are the result of what you are theorizing, you cannot know for certain that x did do this. This is why it is historic science, since it cannot be demonstrated and tested right NOW.

I can understand your confusion here, however what that sentence is relating to are the natural forces or other such that have physical properties but it itself cannot be observed. You cannot "see" gravity, but you can observe its effects. That is what it was referring to, since gravity's effects can be tested empirically right now.

In terms of evolution there is no mathematics since its all "random", hence there is no logic to such inferences regarding evolution

#18 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 20 February 2012 - 08:38 PM

Is that a case of "inference based science" though ?

"As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."

Isn't the CBR a consequence of the Big Bang that was arrived at using mathematics and logic ? (The Big Bang theory is fundamentally a mathematical model that's based on general relativity)

Aren't they starting with the assumption of the big bang? Isn't that what creationist scientist do?

#19 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 February 2012 - 08:40 PM

Aren't they starting with the assumption of the big bang? Isn't that what creationist scientist do?


:D Exactly :D

#20 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 20 February 2012 - 11:11 PM

Such inference based "science" is always employed for things that we cannot test empirically.

I would take this "with a grain of salt" since we have no idea whether the model, (which is a man made invention), is in fact a true representation of reality. It isn't reliable, despite what we get told at school and university.


There have been plenty of times when our interpretation of an event, or supposed event was totally wrong, because we didn't have the whole picture


You do know that what you are saying is true for empirical science as well, right? We always start with a hypothesis, which IS based upon something. We then perform observations and tests to verify our hypothesis and to adjust it untill you think you got everything right. How many models in science have been proven wrong or incomplete that have been tested empirically?

I researched the difference between both types of science and I do not think youranswer provides a decent explanation why we can trust one type of science over the other.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users