Is The World Old Or Young? Can We Trust Scientific Reasoning?

[john_doran]

steveandersen:

Not to get off topic but if we’re solving mechanics equations to 10 or 11 decimal places please provide evidence that we know anything in the equations with that many significant figures much less having that be the number of significant figures that we can actually put in the answer.

here’s a starter link:

absoluteastronomy.com/reference/classical_tests_of_general_relativity

google general relativity and experimental confirmation (or predictive success) and you’ll find all kinds of stuff.

steveandersen:

I beg to differ on that one.

fair enough. based on what reasoning?

here’s a site that gives a good survey of many of the issues in philosophy of science (the page linked is actually on underdetermination):

galilean-library.org/under.html

steveandersen:

Please provide equivalent models to evolution.

i’m not sure what you mean…

if you mean to ask if there are competing models of evolutionary theory, then i would offer gould’s saltational model.

of course, if you ask me, i think that the general appeal of evolutionary theory rests precisely on the fact tthat there really isn’t any other story we have to explain the phenomena…

steveandersen:

Besides, what does science have to do with ontological arguments?

i think you misunderstood me - ontology is the study of being. when you talk about the ontological implications of a theory, you’re talking about the way the theory says the world actually is.
ateveandersen:

While we may indeed guide space ships with a great deal of precision, that means we understand the effects of gravity and doesn’t mean that we understand mechanism underlying it.
Much like humans successfully manuring fields or firing pots centuries before the chemistry behind it was developed.

again, i question your use of the word “understand”; it seems to me that on your usage, we understand almost nothing.

steveandersen:

As for evolution, the effects of it, i.e. phylogeny, are well known and there is a theory for the mechanism that is very robust. So we seem to be a step ahead of our understanding of gravity.

evolution is a theory that postulates an explanation of the phenomena, just like copenhagen and hidden variables theories are interpretive theories for quantum mechanics.

what’s well understood about evolutionary theory is the data: great biological diversity.

steveandersen:

While it maybe popular to dismiss evolution as a set of “just so” stories the criticism fails upon closer examination. Evolution can and does make predictions. The story of the discovery of the first ant is a classic example of this.

talk origins, right? i find it astonishing how much folks around here consider that site to be gospel…

if you honestly think that the discovery of the so-called “ur-ant” is a prediction comparable to, say, the poisson spot or gravitational lensing, then there’s probably nothing i could say to convince you otherwise.
steveanersen:

Is evolution going to make predictions with the precision of classical mechanics? Well a 10 million year variation in a prediction date in a 4.5 billion year history is 0.2%. Not too shabby.

i’m not sure what you’re talking about here.

steveandersen:

Besides, not that I pay too much attention to Epistemology. But why would evolution have any different “epistemic context” than any other branch of science?

it doesn’t - that’s the point. quantum mechanics and general relativity have staggeringly more support for them than evolutionary theory; thus, having anything like nearly as much conviction in the latter as in the former is unreasonable. plain and simple.

 

[steveandersen]

precious_roy:

Also, think about how difficult it would be to totally wipe out, say rats. Wouldn’t be easy, even if we wanted to because there are just so gosh darn many.

Cute little things though.

Queue the creepy Michael Jackson “rat” music

“Ben, the two of us need look no more
We both found what we were looking for
With a friend to call my own
I’ll never be alone
And you, my friend, will see
You’ve got a friend in me
(you’ve got a friend in me)…”

sorry folks…70’s flashback

 

[precious_roy]

steveandersen:

Queue the creepy Michael Jackson “rat” music

“Ben, the two of us need look no more
We both found what we were looking for
With a friend to call my own
I’ll never be alone
And you, my friend, will see
You’ve got a friend in me
(you’ve got a friend in me)…”

sorry folks…70’s flashback

I thoroughly enjoyed that trip down memory lane. Thank you.

 

[freesoulhope]

PhilVaz:

free << The evolution your talking about is micro evolution. >>

Reptile to Mammal is microevolution?
Reptile (or Dinosaur) to Bird is microevolution?
Invertebrate to Vertebrate is microevolution?
What about Fish to Amphibian (Tetrapod), microevolution?

Below is microevolution I’ll grant:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/finches.gif

However, the examples Rossum gave are Macroevolution if the term means anything.

Phil P

all your showing me is a animals ability to adapt and make minor changes to its shape and size, this i accept with out Qeustion( though, God may have just made different speacies of bird). It does not however prove that animals can slowly Change in to other “kinds” of animals over a period of time. This has not be veiwed or replicated in a lab. We have not seen scientists change a Dog in to a reptile, nor have they shown how that could be possible, even if it is. A good story about how different species came to be acording to the simmerlaritys that scientists veiw as evidence, doesnt make me think that what they are saying is true.
God isnt a deciever, “but we are” and we are particulerly good at decieving are selves. The Theory that talks about the evolving of different animal in to different animals, is speculation of the fossils that people find, or living animals that we see to day. We observe changes “within speacies” and we draw conclusions, and blow things out of proportion to a macro scale. Thats all im seeing. if im missing somthing please tell me, if you can give me an anwser or a link that refutes what i have said then fair anough, but i doubt it.

 

[freesoulhope]

i believe that the idea of macro evolution or common descent, what ever you want to call it, is trying to account for all the different species, with out introducing a creator. They succesfully win the minds of people and society including are children (who will problely doubt god more then anyone in are earth history because of the assumptions of science) by, using a allready observible strong truth as there foundation, (a creatures ability to adapt within its own species, or its apearence to do so)( fluke discoverys inspired by hidden agendas) Then they add and adapt an even more adventuras theorys that contradict literal accounts of the bible( which was the populor influence of the times, at least more then now), where as if the first Factual theory wasnt observible, it would never have been accepted. If evolution is truth then fine. But its not a fact and cannot be compared to gravity which is obvioulsy there, even if we dont know how it works. Evolution is proved as far as a creatures ability to adapt to it enviroment. Large scale Evolution maybe true, but should it really be taught with the athority of truth when it lacks observible facts.

 

[precious_roy]

freesoulhope:

all your showing me is a animals ability to adapt and make minor changes to its shape and size, this i accept with out Qeustion( though, God may have just made different speacies of bird). It does not however prove that animals can slowly Change in to other “kinds” of animals over a period of time. This has not be veiwed or replicated in a lab. We have not seen scientists change a Dog in to a reptile, nor have they shown how that could be possible, even if it is. A good story about how different species came to be acording to the simmerlaritys that scientists veiw as evidence, doesnt make me think that what they are saying is true.
God isnt a deciever, “but we are” and we are particulerly good at decieving are selves. The Theory that talks about the evolving of different animal in to different animals, is speculation of the fossils that people find, or living animals that we see to day. We observe changes “within speacies” and we draw conclusions, and blow things out of proportion to a macro scale. Thats all im seeing. if im missing somthing please tell me, if you can give me an anwser or a link that refutes what i have said then fair anough, but i doubt it.

Always my favorite objection. Macroevoluton and microevolution fundamentally refer to the same thing and they have been classified the same by biologists and geneticists: a change in allele frequency. It’s not as if evolutionary theory states that a bird gave birth to a reptile and thus changed kind. These changes MUST by definition be very gradual. Now, if one admits a reductionist perspective, then this is true. If you don’t admit a reductionist perspective than I could see how you would not view this as true. And that is ok if you don’t. Its certainly not nonintellectual to think this way as I know some very smart people who don’t; it’s just a different way of seeing the world.

And yes, evolution is not a fact. Even gravity is not a fact. Actually, there is no such thing as scientific ‘fact’ per say because everything scientific MUST admit the ability that it could be incorrect or incomplete, as I said in a previous post. And yes, science essentially must withhold judgment on Creator/No Creator because it isn’t a testable/verifiable/predictive theory.

 

[steveandersen]

freesoulhope:

all your showing me is a animals ability to adapt and make minor changes to its shape and size, this i accept with out Qeustion( though, God may have just made different speacies of bird). It does not however prove that animals can slowly Change in to other “kinds” of animals over a period of time.

What is the difference between a minor and a major change?
Do many minors equal a major?

What is there to stop the minor changes after they have gone so far?

Once you admit that changes can occur then you’re stuck with the consequences

freesoulhope:

This has not be veiwed or replicated in a lab.

actually it has been…and in the wild too
I think Phil or someone already posted a link

freesoulhope:

We have not seen scientists change a Dog in to a reptile, nor have they shown how that could be possible, even if it is.

Clearly it is not
Such a question indicates a misunderstanding of what evolution claims.
Mammals and reptiles split apart a long time ago. That train has left the station so to speak. You can’t go backward. Dogs can’t become reptiles becaue something already has become a reptile

But given enough time and the right conditions, an isolated population of dogs could become something that wasn’t inter-fertile with other dogs.
You could conceivably, given a looong time, even change a dog into something that looks like a reptile but it would be similar to a whale resembling a fish…it would never become a reptile.

I’m not sure what the motivation for such an experiment would be…

freesoulhope:

A good story about how different species came to be acording to the simmerlaritys that scientists veiw as evidence, doesnt make me think that what they are saying is true.

well it is more than just a good story. No one makes assertions without data

freesoulhope:

God isnt a deciever, “but we are” and we are particulerly good at decieving are selves. The Theory that talks about the evolving of different animal in to different animals, is speculation of the fossils that people find, or living animals that we see to day. We observe changes “within speacies” and we draw conclusions, and blow things out of proportion to a macro scale. Thats all im seeing. if im missing somthing please tell me, if you can give me an anwser or a link that refutes what i have said then fair anough, but i doubt it.

Talk Origins is always a good place to start

 

[TPJCatholic]

Why does it matter if the earth is young or old? I have never understood why this question seems to matter so much to so many people.

 

[marysson]

richbansha:

One thing you may not find in a search is the idea that all existence is simultaneous. Super String theory tells us that there are 9 spacial dimentions. If there are multiple temporal dimentions, as suggested by Dr. Hawking’s concept of imaginary time, then it is possible that past, present and future were created together. Under those conditions, the act of creation can be recent in one axis of time, but history, geology and, yes I’ll say it, evolution can extend back billions of years before creation. Neat huh?

I find that quite interesting. I’ve thought before that God’s creation of the world may be instaneous and contain all time in it before.

Interesting…

 

[steveandersen]

TPJCatholic:

Why does it matter if the earth is young or old? I have never understood why this question seems to matter so much to so many people.

Beats me

It isn’t important to faith IMHO
But some people have the notion that if everything in the bible is not factual (in addition to being true) then the whole thing automatically gets thrown out the window

I find the most strident voices in these debates are either fundamentalist who brook no challenge to their position or skeptics who think that they can shoot the Bible “full of holes” by pointing out “errors”.

Personally, I get involved in these debates because:
(a) As a techno-geek it is one of my personal strengths to know science (everyone has a talent, the other kids could throw a ball…I read……and got beat up ) and I feel compelled to educate others (my mother always thought I should have been a teacher). I’m no bible scholar, philosopher, or theologian like some folks here, but if you want to know why the sky is blue or what flavor of cheese the moon is made of then I’m your man.
(it’s Stilton by the way and don’ let the Dutch tell you any different)
(b) Even though the Church says that we are free to accept science or not as it has no bearing on faith, I personally feel that it reflects badly on the faith if non-believers get the impression that we as a group “Officially” reject certain things that to my mind are as plain as the nose on my face. It is bad enough that we constantly have “inquisition” or “Galileo” thrown in our faces. I think that part of apologetics is to correct others incorrect assumptions

I get a little strident sometimes. Sorry if I offend anyone.

 

[buffalo]

When bacteria become resistant to anti-biotics is this mutation one that gains or loses information?

 

[freesoulhope]

precious_roy:

Always my favorite objection. Macroevoluton and microevolution fundamentally refer to the same thing and they have been classified the same by biologists and geneticists: a change in allele frequency. It’s not as if evolutionary theory states that a bird gave birth to a reptile and thus changed kind. These changes MUST by definition be very gradual. Now, if one admits a reductionist perspective, then this is true. If you don’t admit a reductionist perspective than I could see how you would not view this as true. And that is ok if you don’t. Its certainly not nonintellectual to think this way as I know some very smart people who don’t; it’s just a different way of seeing the world.

And yes, evolution is not a fact. Even gravity is not a fact. Actually, there is no such thing as scientific ‘fact’ per say because everything scientific MUST admit the ability that it could be incorrect or incomplete, as I said in a previous post. And yes, science essentially must withhold judgment on Creator/No Creator because it isn’t a testable/verifiable/predictive theory.

This is all well and good, but what does reductionist mean?

 

[precious_roy]

freesoulhope:

This is all well and good, but what does reductionist mean?

Oh apologies. It means that the ‘stuff’ that makes up any physically complex thing can always be described in terms of simpler ‘stuff’.

For example, celestial bodies (relativity) can be described in terms of smaller bodies (physics).

Humans can be described in terms of their organs (anatomy, phisiology) and organs can be described in terms of cellular makeup (cellular biology) which can be described in terms of their complex chemistry (biochemistry, molecular biology) which can be described in terms of their chemistry (chemistry) which is defined by their subatomic particles (quantum mechanics, particle physics) and so on.

Note that spiritual entities (God, the soul) are not physical objects and cannot be described like this because they are whole / inseparable / nonreductionist. A living human, which is a body inseparable from its soul, cannot be TOTALLY described by these simple physical things (ie free will).

 

[buffalo]

http://www.kolbecenter.org/graphics/hydrogencolor.jpg

 

[freesoulhope]

nice picture, do you except evolution? I do, but im trying to find holes in the theory. Do you know of any ?

 

[freesoulhope]

Does any one know of a apoligist that has atempted to fit evolution in just before the fall of adam and eve, ther are fossils that seem to prove that there where lower humans before morden ones, What links do you have that attempt to explain this. ( and thats asumming i can still believe that the historical blood line decending from adam and eve are literally correct and true!).

 

[TPJCatholic]

steve,

I suppose I look at this way:

God created the universe, the earth and all life. So, whether He did that with Evolution that took billions of years, or He popped it all into existence 10,000 years ago, neither option impactd on faith at all. So, I still wonder why this topic comes-up so often on these faith threads.

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

When bacteria become resistant to anti-biotics is this mutation one that gains or loses information?

I’m not sure what you mean by information?

If you are asking if the genetic variation increases the answer is yes…and no.

The strain the survives will have one more resistance trick up its genetic sleeve so by that count there is more variation

BUT

All the other strains that died off may have had variations that the surviving ones didn’t so there is a loss

 

[buffalo]

steveandersen:

I’m not sure what you mean by information?

If you are asking if the genetic variation increases the answer is yes…and no.

The strain the survives will have one more resistance trick up its genetic sleeve so by that count there is more variation

BUT

All the other strains that died off may have had variations that the surviving ones didn’t so there is a loss

If I take my anti-biotics for two days instead of 10 I risk not killing all the bacteria. The ones that survive are the most hardy. I don’t consider this a self caused resistance, so therefore I submit there is no information gain. Since mutations lose genetic information it could be said as time goes on mutations cause devolution (survival of the fittest) not evolution. In other words the bacteria are a victim of circumstance rather than an intellignece that can offset the attacks on the organism.

 

[freesoulhope]

you dont understand. I have no problem evolution. But What i do have a problem with is, how much of biblical history is story and how much of it is literal. Can i literaly believe that human history from the time of adam and eve untill now as it is written is a literal truth, for example. From the time of abraham i comfortably take it in literaly. but before that, im not sure how im supposed to read it. Can i believe that thier was a flood? does it matter? it doesn t bother me , but i can imagine how sombody like my cosin would resist God, based on the idea that humans have been around alot longer then biblical discriptions seem to display. How do i explain to him, when im not sure how to take the bible from adam to abraham my self?.