Science vs. Creationism

[Jazz Spazz]

I agree. I would have been more precise by saying "observational, repeatable, objective evidence".

objective if it's a noun, sure
repeatable applies to both
observational applies to both

 

[One Brow]

objective if it's a noun, sure
repeatable applies to both
observational applies to both

In another thread, perhaps on another day if you don't wish to have it now, I would enjoy having a discussion with you about this. For example, I don't think we mean "observation" in quite the same way, but I would be interested to hear what you mean, rather than assuming it, when you feel like discussing it.

 

[BENTLEY]

PS You should read your links before posting. Darwin in that chapter explains, much better than I ever could, the "imperfection of the geological record". It is not, despite the title, an acquiescence to his theories skeptics.

Seriously? I wish you could explain it better because Darwin's rhetoric is so dry and tedious. And severely lacking in evidence. And yeah, he doesn't acquiesce to his critics, but he does at least acknowledge the reasons for their skepticism - and acknowledges that he lacks the proof to persuade them. But he sticks to his theory, defending it with vague, unprovable rhetoric. Let's sift thru a few excerpts to see his defense in action (this will be a lengthy post, friends. And this is only excerpts from chapter 9):

The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Darwin's defense for the lack of numerous intermediate varieties is that the geological record is extremely imperfect. Yes, it's sorely lacking. I agree. This is his best defense?

I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself, forms directly intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor

This isn't proof. This is speculative rhetoric.

On the lapse of Time. Independently of our not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links, it may be objected, that time will not have sufficed for so great an amount of organic change, all changes having been effected very slowly through natural selection. ...A man must for years examine for himself great piles of superimposed strata, and watch the sea at work grinding down old rocks and making fresh sediment, before he can hope to comprehend anything of the lapse of time, the monuments of which we see around us.

How can he expected to prove something that takes eons of observational study? ok, so no proof here.

I have made these few remarks because it is highly important for us to gain some notion, however imperfect, of the lapse of years. During each of these years, over the whole world, the land and the water has been peopled by hosts of living forms. What an infinite number of generations, which the mind cannot grasp, must have succeeded each other in the long roll of years! Now turn to our richest geological museums, and what a paltry display we behold!

Speculative, vague rhetoric - the proof of which he admits is paltry.

That our Palaeontological collections are very imperfect, is admitted by every one.

Ok.

On the sudden appearance of whole groups of Allied Species. The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists, for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and by none more forcibly than by Professor Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. For the development of a group of forms, all of which have descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long ages before their modified descendants. But we continually over-rate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage. We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined; we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed and have slowly multiplied before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and of the United States. We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have probably elapsed between our consecutive formations, longer perhaps in some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such species will appear as if suddenly created.

Again, Darwin clings to the vague bastion of "Time." Y'know, evolution takes an insane amount of time so we can't observe it in order to prove it, and y'know, no one lives for eons of time so no one can say one way or another what occurs over time, or doesn't occur over time. This is science? This is compelling?

On the sudden appearance of groups of Allied Species in the lowest known fossiliferous strata. There is another and allied difficulty, which is much graver. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group, suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group have descended from one progenitor, apply with nearly equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal. Some of the most ancient Silurian animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot on my theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the species of the orders to which they belong, for they do not present characters in any degree intermediate between them. If, moreover, they had been the progenitors of these orders, they would almost certainly have been long ago supplanted and exterminated by their numerous and improved descendants.

Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.

To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.

Look at the evidence. Not the rhetoric. The evidence mentioned here is in conflict with Darwin's theory. To which, his rebuttal once again is Time. So much time that no one can possibly KNOW that his theory is incorrect. He again is given to speculative rhetoric. But when it comes to actual evidence he can't answer.

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis. From the nature of the organic remains, which do not appear to have inhabited profound depths, in the several formations of Europe and of the United States; and from the amount of sediment, miles in thickness, of which the formations are composed, we may infer that from first to last large islands or tracts of land, whence the sediment was derived, occurred in the neighbourhood of the existing continents of Europe and North America. But we do not know what was the state of things in the intervals between the successive formations; whether Europe and the United States during these intervals existed as dry land, or as a submarine surface near land, on which sediment was not deposited, or again as the bed of an open and unfathomable sea.

Speculation is his rebuttal.

The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature. We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds even in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.

Again, he says that TIME and the lack of perfection in the geological record allows for the possibility of his theory. Ok, fine. But this isn't proof of anything.
Darwin's arguments are speculative. This is science?

 

[One Brow]

Darwin's arguments are speculative. This is science?

Many of Darwin's arguments were speculative. That is science; you need to posit a way forward and a next step, not just catalog what is know.

Most of the speculations have since been confirmed, a very few were rebutted. That is also science.

 

[BENTLEY]

Berlinski is a hack. If you like, I can link yo to several critiques of his positions that demonstrate this.

I know he has enemies among evolutionists. They hate him because his arguments against the theory are pretty compelling. Berlinski's a hack? - come on. Why is it so prevalent among evolutionists to resort to name calling?

I hate how this debate often becomes so heated. Everyone's so sure they're right. All that Berlinski says is that he isn't convinced. And he gives his reasons - basically that there's no proof of the theory. All we have are data and different interpretations of that data. But proof of evolution we have none.

 

[BENTLEY]

Many of Darwin's arguments were speculative. That is science; you need to posit a way forward and a next step, not just catalog what is know.

Speculation is hypothesis. Ok. But science is testing that hypothesis. But we can't test this hypothesis because too much time prohibits us from testing it. So we're still left with just the untested hypothesis.

Most of the speculations have since been confirmed, a very few were rebutted. That is also science.

What are you talking about? Interpretation of fossils? Or were they able to recreate evolution in a vacuum?

 

[BENTLEY]

I agree. I would have been more precise by saying "observational, repeatable, objective evidence".

We can observe evolution? We can repeat it in a labratory?

 

[BENTLEY]

At the time Darwin wrote, the fossil evidence was lacking. Since then, we've found tens of thousands (at least) of fossils. There have been a couple of attempts at forgeries, but the same scientists (collectively) who found the genuine fossils also rooted out the forgeries.

For example, almost every fossil on this page was found after Darwin died:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

These are fossils. But their being found doesn't dispel the controversy. If this was incontrovertible evidence then this issue would be resolved. It is not. Everyone interprets the data to support their premature position. If we could just recreate evolution in a vacuum over and over and see for ourselves what happens then there might be something to the theory. But given that we can't do that, all we have are bones and the interpretation of them. Like - Joseph Smith finding that skeleton and saying he was a "descendent of Ham." I can't be convinced of something until its proof is clear without the need for interpretation.

 

[One Brow]

I know he has enemies among evolutionists. They hate him because his arguments against the theory are pretty compelling. Berlinski's a hack? - come on. Why is it so prevalent among evolutionists to resort to name calling?

He has no enemies. Really, very few people even think about him until he puts something out. It's not name-calling, it's identifying the quality of his work. Berlinski is smart, reasonably charming, well-mannered, etc. His comments on evolutionary theory are hack-work, therefore he is a hack.

However, I would be more than happy to link for you detailed descriptions of the mathematical failures, that have few or not insults.

And he gives his reasons - basically that there's no proof of the theory. All we have are data and different interpretations of that data. But proof of evolution we have none.

We have no proof of Atomic Theory. All we have are data and different interpretations of that data. But proof of matter being made of atoms we have none. Yet, Berlinski does not apply this logic to Atomic Theory.

We have no proof of the Theory of Gravity. All we have are data and different interpretations of that data. But proof of gravitational attraction we have none. Yet, Berlinski does not apply this logic to the Theory of Gravity.

We have no proof of the Tectonic Plate Theory. All we have are data and different interpretations of that data. But proof of continental drift we have none. Yet, Berlinski does not apply this logic to Tectonic Plate Theory.

Science does not deal in proof. Science deals in evidence, modeling, and testing. Anytime anyone tells you there is no proof of evolution, in a manner where they suggest there should be such a proof, they are deceiving you. Evolution has just as much evidence, just as usable models, and just as thorough testing as the Atomic Theory, the Theory of Gravity, or Tectonic Plate Theory.

 

[One Brow]

Speculation is hypothesis. Ok. But science is testing that hypothesis. But we can't test this hypothesis because too much time prohibits us from testing it. So we're still left with just the untested hypothesis.

Testing can include making and verifying predictions. We have used evolution to make predictions about both fossils and living organisms that were verified.

What are you talking about? Interpretation of fossils? Or were they able to recreate evolution in a vacuum?

Both.

We can observe evolution? We can repeat it in a labratory?

We can, and have.

These are fossils. But their being found doesn't dispel the controversy.

Of course not, because the source of the controversy is not evidence to begin with. For a variety of reasons, many people don't like to believe they share an ancestor with the chimpanzee, the rat, the red snapper, the mushroom, etc. Evidence matters little in the face of powerful emotions.

If we could just recreate evolution in a vacuum over and over and see for ourselves what happens then there might be something to the theory. But given that we can't do that, all we have are bones and the interpretation of them. Like - Joseph Smith finding that skeleton and saying he was a "descendent of Ham." I can't be convinced of something until its proof is clear without the need for interpretation.

No matter what the level of evidence, there will always be a need for interpretation.

 

[MVP]

All we have are data and different interpretations of that data. But proof of evolution we have none.

See my signature. Are you one of those?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

objective if it's a noun, sure
repeatable applies to both
observational applies to both

In another thread, perhaps on another day if you don't wish to have it now, I would enjoy having a discussion with you about this. For example, I don't think we mean "observation" in quite the same way, but I would be interested to hear what you mean, rather than assuming it, when you feel like discussing it.

If you want to test a scientific hypothesis you will set up an experiment and observe during the experiment.
Depending on the experiment you may be using the senses sight, sound, smell, touch, taste to observe. You may be using any of a number of measurements.

If you want to test a spiritual hypothesis you will set up an experiment and observe during the experiment.
Depending on the experiment you are most likely to use your sense of spirit to observe. A tool I can think of for getting a measurement is your own conscience/spiritual sensor for lack of a better term.

ob·ser·va·tion
noun \ˌäb-sər-ˈvā-shən, -zər-\

: a statement about something you have noticed : a comment or remark: the act of careful watching and listening : the activity of paying close attention to someone or something in order to get information

: an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving measurement with instruments

 

[MVP]

This guy David Berlinski's great. Youtube him.

Berlinski himself prefers to be known as a writer rather than as a scientist. Why would anybody take him seriously?

 

[♪alt13]

This is strictly about the choice of words. We have no theories about the beginning of life, just hypotheses. We don't want to water down the word "theory" as used in science; that just gives ammunition to the anti-science folks.

No. It is not my fault that the scientific use of the word theory is so ambiguous in terms of the level of validation one or another may have. Hypothesis would have been the incorrect term.

Theory vs. hypothesis
A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth.

A hypothesis is a testable idea. Scientists do not set out to “prove” hypotheses, but to test them. Often multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses and to describe evolution as “just a theory” is inappropriate.

 

[One Brow]

No. It is not my fault that the scientific use of the word theory is so ambiguous in terms of the level of validation one or another may have. Hypothesis would have been the incorrect term.

Using the definitions you offered, in what way does abiogenesis qualify as theory over hypothesis? We have several testable ideas, no centrally accepted explanation.

 

[♪alt13]

This is strictly about the choice of words. We have no theories about the beginning of life, just hypotheses. We don't want to water down the word "theory" as used in science; that just gives ammunition to the anti-science folks.

Seriously? I wish you could explain it better because Darwin's rhetoric is so dry and tedious. And severely lacking in evidence. And yeah, he doesn't acquiesce to his critics, but he does at least acknowledge the reasons for their skepticism - and acknowledges that he lacks the proof to persuade them. But he sticks to his theory, defending it with vague, unprovable rhetoric. Let's sift thru a few excerpts to see his defense in action (this will be a lengthy post, friends. And this is only excerpts from chapter 9):
Darwin's defense for the lack of numerous intermediate varieties is that the geological record is extremely imperfect. Yes, it's sorely lacking. I agree. This is his best defense?

This isn't proof. This is speculative rhetoric.


How can he expected to prove something that takes eons of observational study? ok, so no proof here.

Speculative, vague rhetoric - the proof of which he admits is paltry.

Ok.


Again, Darwin clings to the vague bastion of "Time." Y'know, evolution takes an insane amount of time so we can't observe it in order to prove it, and y'know, no one lives for eons of time so no one can say one way or another what occurs over time, or doesn't occur over time. This is science? This is compelling?


Look at the evidence. Not the rhetoric. The evidence mentioned here is in conflict with Darwin's theory. To which, his rebuttal once again is Time. So much time that no one can possibly KNOW that his theory is incorrect. He again is given to speculative rhetoric. But when it comes to actual evidence he can't answer.


Speculation is his rebuttal.


Again, he says that TIME and the lack of perfection in the geological record allows for the possibility of his theory. Ok, fine. But this isn't proof of anything.
Darwin's arguments are speculative. This is science?

Just pulled out my copy. This is all from Chapter 10 FWIW.

Again you really need to understand is that this book was first published in 1859. Now I have not heard any objections from you about the hominid fossils that we have found since then and that I furnished a link for. Do you doubt the validity of these fossils? On what grounds? Or did you not even bother to look at the evidence you were presented?

 

[LogGrad98]

Berlinski himself prefers to be known as a writer rather than as a scientist. Why would anybody take him seriously?

So he isn't allowed to doubt, or have questions that might be valid, because he chooses to identify himself as a writer? Seems awfully dogmatic.

 

[♪alt13]

This is strictly about the choice of words. We have no theories about the beginning of life, just hypotheses. We don't want to water down the word "theory" as used in science; that just gives ammunition to the anti-science folks.

Using the definitions you offered, in what way does abiogenesis qualify as theory over hypothesis? We have several testable ideas, no centrally accepted explanation.

The theory of general relativity is a theory. Gravitational lensing was a hypothesis predicted by the theory and once observed increased the validation of Einsteins theory.

Think of an arch. You cannot see this arch until you are within inches of it. At this point no one knows what it is. You build a ladder. You observe the first stone on either side. After carefully measuring them you formulate the theory that the invisible thing is an arch with certain dimensions. Using your theory you hypothesize that if you were able to get even higher that there would be yet another stone with the same angle. I come along and build an even higher ladder. After measuring the second stone I find that it has a steeper angle. I adjust the dimensions of your arch theory.

In this example the Arch is a theory. The angle of yet unknown stones are hypothesis. The measured stones are facts. At this point we have not proven that the invisible thing is an arch and the arch theory is correct. We do however have some evidence that lends a certain level of validity to our theory.


Sorry that's the best I can do.

 

[BENTLEY]

Just pulled out my copy. This is all from Chapter 10 FWIW.

Look at it again. It's all from On the Imperfection of the Geological Record - which appears to be chapter 9.
Chapter 10 is On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings.

I have not heard any objections from you about the hominid fossils that we have found since then and that I furnished a link for. Do you doubt the validity of these fossils? On what grounds? Or did you not even bother to look at the evidence you were presented?

I thought I replied to that but maybe it was OneBrow's post I responded to. Let me go back and look at it.

 

[BENTLEY]

heyhey let's talk hominid fossils

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

This is the link you sent, right?

there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare.

Ok, so we're talking about singular bones/teeth and citing them as the "missing link." I see the pictures. Let's see how they interpret them:

There are a number of clear trends (which were neither continuous nor uniform) from early australopithecines to recent humans: increasing brain size, increasing body size, increasing use of and sophistication in tools, decreasing tooth size, decreasing skeletal robustness. There are no clear dividing lines between some of the later gracile australopithecines and some of the early Homo, between erectus and archaic sapiens, or archaic sapiens and modern sapiens.

Despite this, there is little consensus on what our family tree is. Everyone accepts that the robust australopithecines (aethiopicus, robustus and boisei) are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that left no descendants. Whether H. habilis is descended from A. afarensis, africanus, both of them, or neither of them, is still a matter of debate. It is possible that none of the known australopithecines is our ancestor.

A number of new genera and species have been discovered within the last decade (Ar. ramidus, Au. amanensis, Au. bahrelghazali, Au. garhi, Orrorin, Kenyanthropus, Sahelanthropus) and no consensus has yet formed on how they are related to each other or to humans. It is generally accepted that Homo erectus is descended from Homo habilis (or, at least, some of the fossils often assigned to habilis), but the relationship between erectus, sapiens and the Neandertals is still unclear. Neandertal affinities can be detected in some specimens of both archaic and modern sapiens.

I'm shaking my head. Did you read that? This evolutionist admits the lack of consensus but you're claiming it's case closed evidence - the "missing link." This evolutionist gives no answers - just a lot of we're-not-sures.

This is not case closed evidence, dude. It's not. I'm not gonna accept evidence that even among evolutionists there's no clear consensus, and I'm sorry that you have.
Now is when some make assumptions about me - that I just can't accept that I might have descended from an ape. THAT'S why he won't join the rational side - thus making the assumption that I'm not rational about this. It's the same as the assumptions mormons make about why so-and-so stopped going to church. Because he wants to sin or he was offended by some member. Not that he did a little research into church history. I hate that people do this. But I probably do it too. Whatevs. I was an evolutionist, so I had no problem with the idea that we descended from apes. But the evidence for it is lacking. It was really eye opening to look at what was claimed as evidence. We got a buncha bones and somebody says hey this looks kinda human but also kinda like an ape - could it be? And then the imagination fills in the gaps. I'm oversimplifying, yes, but not much. People hear some scientist rattle off all this jargon and assume they know what they're talking about. Read this story:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution They found some skulls and now the scientific community is all "what?"

Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks.

"What all this screams out for is more and better specimens. We need skeletons, more complete material, so we can look at them from head to toe," he added. "Any time a scientist says 'we've got this figured out' they are probably wrong. It's not the end of the story."

why do we need better specimens if the case for evolution has been closed?


I'm not going to convince you guys to be less certain of something so uncertain. Debates on internet forums are kind of a joke in themselves. My day-to-day existence doesn't really require me to know where I originated from. But the guys vehemently claiming that they know where man came from only provide evidence that requires a lot of conjecture. I won't sacrifice my reason to be part of the majority. Keep huffing and puffing, evolutionists. But rather than getting your panties in a bunch because some people still won't succumb to your gap-filled evidence, why don't you go out and find the evidence. Or maybe the lack of evidence is why you're huffing and puffing.

It's a theory. It ain't my theory, so burden of proof isn't mine.

Did you guys hear about Francis Crick and his panspermia theory? It's pretty hilarious. But we're veering out of evolution and into intelligent design territory.
Here's Crick's theory of where the DNA molecule he discovered actually came from (if you want a laugh):
https://www.cracked.com/article_19777_5-great-scientists-who-believed-wildly-unscientific-things_p2.html