No, that is not an ad hominem. You do not appear to understand what one is. The quote was taken out of context. There was an attempt to change the meaning of the quote and it is a typical flaw of creationists. If he had implied that all creationists are dishonest in this manner you might have a point. The problem is that the people that wrote that knew what they were doing was wrong. You have too much trust in your fellow creationists. The person that copied and pasted that quote may not have been lying on purpose, but the people that made it were.
I agree. All too many people don't realize the absolute necessity of this step. But it goes to the nature of evidence.
To be evidence doesn't simply mean an observation is *consistent* with a hypothesis. It means that the likelihood of that hypothesis *changes* when confronted with the evidence: it is either more or less likely to be true.
So, for example, I can hypothesize that angels are pushing the planets in orbit around the sun. or I could hypothesize Newton's law of gravity and his dynamic hypothesis (three laws of motion). Of those, only the second is testable. And it is testable in exquisite detail. If a planet is not found where those laws of motion predict, that is enough to show that some hypothesis is wrong.
The hypothesis of angels pushing the planets is *consistent* with absolutely *any* observation made of the planets. And that is *precisely* why this hypothesis must be rejected: there is no possible evidence that can change the likelihood of it being correct or not.
Any 'hypothesis' that is consistent with *every possible* set of observations simply *cannot* be an explanation for anything. It is absolutely worthless if the goal is explanations.
This seems to suggest that evidence can be ignored based on what one chooses to believe. Why do I say that?
You are looking at one single hypothesis, and not giving consideration to what can be observed that supports that hypothesis.
So for example,
Hypothesis : angels pushing the planets.
Test : let's see if we see angels pushing the planets.
Conclusion : Nope.
That's like a hypothesis that a force in the universe is pulling the planets.
I can't see the force, therefore there is no force.
No. We investigate other evidence... or surroundings evidence, to see if indeed a force is pulling the planets.
To investigate whether or not angels are pushing the planets may require investigating other evidence, that may lead us to finding out if there is anything such as aliens... I mean, angels.
Then we might not be so quick to dismiss the hypothesis.
I would say that using the products of science, like computers, semi-conductors, laser communication systems, etc. to send you this message, appear to be very reliable.
Try to do the same by praying to your brand of God and you are in business. Otherwise, well, every kid would tell you what to trust. One works, the other never
You have just made a faith statement. Only thing is in that faith statement, you have said "anything that needs faith doesnt fly". That means you have an axiom, but you breaking the law of non-contradiction.
With regard to science, hypotheses need to be proven. Faith is in things that are not proven. The definition of faith used to be different than in recent years, but going on the new definition, how can it be proven?
But I'd make the distinction between useful answers and useless ones. Useful answers are those that explain how observable phenomena occur, and can be used to predict future outcomes. If your answer can't do that, or even be demonstrated to correlate with reality in any way, then it doesn't matter if we call it true or false. It's what logical positivists would say isn't even wrong, because it cannot be shown to be right or wrong. They are meaningless ideas since they can't be used for anything.
Faith-based systems of thought are not empirically grounded, and thus have little practical value. They are not derived from physical reality and therefore cannot comment on it in any meaningful or useful way.
Compare the answer to the question of where the tree of life came from. Christianity, for example, says that its God created them (creationism). Science gives us the theory of evolution. The first answer wasn't derived from the study of nature, and can therefore make no predictions about it, either, nor explain how it was done. That's not a useful answer even if correct. Because the scientific answer is drawn from the consideration of physical evidence, it can unify it all in an overarching narrative that includes a mechanism (natural selection applied to spontaneous genetic variation), and accurately predicts what cannot be found in nature and what can. It also can be used in fields like agriculture and medicine to make life better.
So, yeah, creationism gives us answers, but because they are not grounded in evidence, they are not useful even if correct.
Empirically - by observation, by an idea's predictive power. What more do you need to know about the validity of the science and engineering underlying the Apollo moon missions apart from the fact that the crew got to the moon and back to know that the assumptions underlying the mission were valid?
Quite interesting.
You know, I was reading what scientists were saying about man's involvement in the problems we now face with "extreme whether", diseases, etc. etc., and I commented on the fact that we know - not feel, believe, think, but know, it's going to get worst, as many scientists fear.
How do we know? The Bible says it will happen.
Can we be sure? Why yes. It never failed in anything it prophesied... Not once. Never.
So contrary to your claims, the Bible provides useful answers... which, by the way helps, and continue to help millions. It's very useful.
They explain why observable phenomena occur.
Knowing how something happens when you are powerless against it, either because of greed, selfishness, pride, or plain inability doesn't seem very useful to me.
Knowing why, puts one in a better position to avoid the effects that many experience, and does a lot more for one's mind.
Yes, the knowledge from the Bible does deal with reality, and though quite old, has much practical value.
In fact, it's so practical, the very attitudes we see on display right now, is documented as a factual occurances.
I'm sure if you had someone tell you where you would be April 22nd 2022, and you found yourself there, you would think that person was very useful.
They likely would have to disguise themselves to get away from you visiting them everyday.
This seems to suggest that evidence can be ignored based on what one chooses to believe. Why do I say that?
You are looking at one single hypothesis, and not giving consideration to what can be observed that supports that hypothesis.
So for example,
Hypothesis : angels pushing the planets.
Test : let's see if we see angels pushing the planets.
Conclusion : Nope.
That's why it is a combination of the force AND the dynamic laws of motion (given a force, what motion is produced). The combination is very testable (look to see if the planet is where it was predicted to be based on the force and laws of motion).
No. We investigate other evidence... or surroundings evidence, to see if indeed a force is pulling the planets.
To investigate whether or not angels are pushing the planets may require investigating other evidence, that may lead us to finding out if there is anything such as aliens... I mean, angels.
Then we might not be so quick to dismiss the hypothesis.
Nope, that is NOT an ad hominem. it is an observation that creationist literature tends to have a LOT of quotes taken out of context in such a way that they mislead.
How has this changed or differed from the definition in the OP?
Well, it is an inference because you need to *assume* that the instrument is accurate. You need to assume it is in working order. You need to assume that the previous adjustments to it continue to hold. Hence, it is an *inference* that the instrument gives a correct reading.
:So you think something is reliable, based on attempts to show it wrong failing. Thanks.
I'll keep that in mind.
ALL observations have a certain amount of uncertainty in them. Usually, as science progresses, the uncertainty decreases.
There are scores of examples I can find, but I will just refer to one I looked at recently. The moon is much older than some scientists believe, a research team now reports. Their precise analysis of zircons bought to Earth by Apollo 14 astronauts reveals the moon is at least 4.51 billion years old and probably formed only about 60 million years after the birth of the solar system -- 40 to 140 million years earlier than recently thought.
So about 3% off? That doesn't sound like a lot to me. Well within the range where such dates can be debated. What are the new error bars? What error bars did the previous estimate have?
So, in answer to your question, the claim that the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years seems to be reliable either way, doesn't it?
Or are you thinking that there is *ever* perfect accuracy in any measurement? if so, you need to learn a bit about how things work.
You are a theist I assume by your post. Thus, why do you give in to this newly created axiom of "religion vs science"? This is a recently created false dichotomy. I know that in history some religious institutions have worked against scientific thinkers or philosophers. But that does not mean religion and science are a true dichotomy.
I understand. I just think this is the appropriate forum to debate science babble vs truth.
Perhaps you don't understand what is science babble.
It goes something like this... one team of paleontologists proposed that Archaeopteryx was not a bird but actually a feather-covered, non-avian dinosaur more closely related to genera like Microraptor and Troodon. ...a different team of paleontologists has published a paper in Biology Letters that says Archaeopteryx was an early bird after all.
It's not always like that, but that's an example. Babbling beliefs.
Did you see the debate on the one feather they found, and claiming what it belonged to? Lol.
Sorry, but it takes faith to believe that evolutionary mechanisms produced the first bacterial flagellum. Or the first protein. Or even the first cellular membrane.
I understand. I just think this is the appropriate forum to debate science babble vs truth.
Perhaps you don't understand what is science babble.
It goes something like this... one team of paleontologists proposed that Archaeopteryx was not a bird but actually a feather-covered, non-avian dinosaur more closely related to genera like Microraptor and Troodon. ...a different team of paleontologists has published a paper in Biology Letters that says Archaeopteryx was an early bird after all.
It's not always like that, but that's an example. Babbling beliefs.
Did you see the debate on the one feather they found, and claiming what it belonged to? Lol.
Why is that babble? it looks to me like one person is suggesting a different interpretation of the evidence and the other is showing why that interpretation fails. That seems like *exactly* what should be happening.
Are you digging to try to understand how one's worldview affects their inferences about reality?
If so, isn't the least amount of assumptions the way to go about exploring reality? First you would have to make only necessary assumptions, and then come up with valid tests for those assumptions.
I believe physics and the natural world gives plenty of phenomenon to be objective about.
An unseen world of agency does not really give any objective and productive way forward in understanding it if it does exist.
Science tries to expand its reach but only spends time on productive ways of asking questions. What can we know with making as little assumptions as humanly possible!
So the worldview must be kept to a minimum.
So perhaps you are asking how does one know what they claim to know! It's far easier to infer things that are observable and/or measurable than it is to infer things productively about an unseen reality that is perhaps immaterial.
I've actually made the inference that crude adaptive intellect is at work in nature, and no design can be inferred. If intellect then it has some forethought, but is doing a lot of trial and error to get anywhere with what it does. If there is intellect in the programming of nature it's very far from optimal, and often goes disastrously wrong.
Evolution at least is a very plausible narrative, and I would like to see the evidence and learn how they draw their conclusions. I don't think they even address the appearance of agency in nature. Nor is there any method nor interest for them to do so. Mainly because there is nothing productive to do with it, and the preconception that only what is observable, and measurable is real.
Is anything objective that cannot be proven?
Say, science gives an explanation for a phenomenon, after rigorous test, Is that a guarantee that their conclusion is correct?
Religious people may have observable facts - evidence - for the conclusions they reach.
They can't prove their conclusion. Is it any less objective? Why?
But skeptical reasoned enquiry, including scientific method, has a clear test for truth which is as objective as we can make it.
Religion has nothing even faintly resembling an objective test for truth, no way of establishing how many more angels can be fitted on the head of a pin with modern technology. Supernatural religion is indistinguishable from fiction.
The ratio of their agreements to their disagreements is huge ─ unlike the Christians, with whom disagreement seems to be a matter of pride, having the license of fiction as they do.
Ah, that's another thing about religion, the pretense that there's such a thing as absolute truth. Or in the Christian case, 45,000 different versions of any particular 'absolute truth'.
In science, 'truth' is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with /accurately reflects objective reality.
Thus scientific method begins with empirical examination of the world external to the self ('nature', 'reality'), the proposing of hypotheses to explain what's observed, the testing of each hypothesis to see how well it fits with observation, the reporting of findings in detail for scrutiny by one's peers, requirements of honesty, frankness and transparency, the authority of informed consensus ... and so on.
Nothing like that is available to religion ─ or to the writing of fiction.
Of course, if you disagree, please tell me the objective test (rather than the literary one) that we can apply to supernatural claims.
Is anything objective that cannot be proven?
Say, science gives an explanation for a phenomenon, after rigorous test, Is that a guarantee that their conclusion is correct?
Religious people may have observable facts - evidence - for the conclusions they reach.
They can't prove their conclusion. Is it any less objective? Why?
Science looks for repeatability, demonstration, and reliability that is logically consistent and shows to be able to make accurate predictions.
I don't think there is any absolute proof in it. Only effective models, patterns, and relationships discovered. Science will tell you how something behaves, and do so in great detail. Science will find relationships in behaviours. Science to me deals only in observables and what can be measured.
If there is a why and an absolute proof you'll probably need another method. Probably that method falls under philosophy.
I would also say there is no guarantees that science is absolutely correct. It's more that they discover reliable perspectives that are useful, and there are levels and degrees of reliability and usefulness.
To say I know and it is proven is a great challenge in reality. I think science gets closer and closer to explaining the behavior of physical phenomenon truthfully, but 100% proof is probably fantasy imo.
I think religious people have reasons inferred from evidence. I think often those reasons are of a personal nature, and other times they are trying to be objective. I don't think all religious people accept blind faith. Many do though.
I myself don't think everything in reality has a purely physical explanation.
Some people that are religious try to be objective about how their revelation matches up with reality. And there are tons of legitimate objective questions people have about religion. I don't think anybody can cover them all.
I could never let a book dictate how I see reality more than reality itself though. I think that is where religious objectivity falls short of success in being objective.
Science is designed to question and eliminate bias. Religion doesn't have a purely objective process.
I understand. I just think this is the appropriate forum to debate science babble vs truth.
Perhaps you don't understand what is science babble.
It goes something like this... one team of paleontologists proposed that Archaeopteryx was not a bird but actually a feather-covered, non-avian dinosaur more closely related to genera like Microraptor and Troodon. ...a different team of paleontologists has published a paper in Biology Letters that says Archaeopteryx was an early bird after all.
It's not always like that, but that's an example. Babbling beliefs.
Did you see the debate on the one feather they found, and claiming what it belonged to? Lol.
Okay I understand what you are trying to do. I misunderstood you.
Anyway, science does not work for truths. Science works. I mean, it just works. You are using science right now to communicate. I know that "science babble" exists and people use it for their pleasure. But I dont know how the example you gave is science babble. Because although I dont understand the jargon, they seem to be scientific words. Not some person taking you for a ride using science babble.
It’s on evidential grounds, also. Or rather, the lack of evidence supporting evolutionary mechanisms as the builder of novel features. The “explanatory deficits” (Gerd Müller) are everywhere. And many scientists are recognizing its limits.
The evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.
One wonders what these "explanatory deficits" might be if they are everywhere.
Scientists already recognized the limitations of the theory. It isn't about the origin of life. It does not propose magical morphing. And so on.
Gerd Müller? I fail to understand why you think a controversy in science means that your particular ideology is confirmed. Müller supports an modified version of the theory of evolution. He is not claiming that evolution does not occur.
Why? Since you and these scientists make facts of premier importance, which you should…what facts are there supporting your claim that there is a God? There must be something. Is it just “a feeling” y’all have?
I said that I believe in God. My belief is based on faith. I am not claiming to have evidence for the existence of God. The only claim I made was that some scientists believe in God and that I believe in God.
I am surprised at you for using such an obvious straw man argument.
Additionally, are you claiming definitive, objective evidence for God? If so, can you share that with the rest of us?
Sure.
Is there evidence that life is a product of special creation? Does life show evidence of purpose? Design? Thoughtful planning? Involvement of an intelligent agent?
Is there evidence that the Bible is from a source higher than man? Is there evidence the Bible can be trusted? Is there evidence that both lines of evidence strongly and unbreakably support each other?
To further explain how they compare to scientific evidence, let's consider the two references in the OP, as an example. Archaeopteryx
Paleontologists viewArchaeopteryx as a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and modern birds.
Well, that is, some paleontologist view Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and modern birds.
Recently, they are questioning that, with some scientists claiming that... Archaeopteryx is a bird-like dinosaur. Archaeopteryx Knocked From Roost as Original Bird Archaeopteryx's status as the forerunner of modern birds is crumbling in the face of a new, closely-related fossil.
The new discovery, a feathered, chicken-sized dinosaur named Xiaotingia, has prompted a fresh look at the dinosaur family tree, casting Archaeopteryx as a bird-like dinosaur rather than dinosaur-like bird.
Archaeopteryx has been fundamental to our understanding of birds' origins but, if confirmed, this finding questions those assumptions.
Just a decade ago... minus 20 days, Smithsonian magazine, carried an article entitled The Great Archaeopteryx Debates Continue.
It went like this.... Quote Since the time the English anatomist Richard Owen described Archaeopteryx as the “by-fossil-remains-oldest-known feathered Vertebrate” in 1863, the curious creature has been widely regarded as the earliest known bird. Lately, though, the status of the iconic animal has been up for debate. Earlier this summer, one team of paleontologists proposed that Archaeopteryx was not a bird but actually a feather-covered, non-avian dinosaur more closely related to genera like Microraptor and Troodon. Now a different team of paleontologists has published a paper in Biology Letters that says Archaeopteryx was an early bird after all.
The ongoing back and forth over Archaeopteryx reminds me of the old Looney Tunes bit where Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck keep going back and forth over which hunting season it is. “Duck season.” “Wabbit season!” “Duck season” “WABBIT SEASON!” In the same way, the argument over Archaeopteryx could seemingly go on indefinitely. The reasons why have everything to do with how both science and evolution work. Unquote
They forgot to mention however, that the Archaeopteryx debate has been going on from the beginning of the discovery. A particular[l]y important and still contentious discovery is Archaeopteryx lithographica Archaeopteryx certainly had feathers, although whether these feathers were used for regulating its body temperature or for flight is a matter still open for debate. Feathers may have originally evolved for insulation and then been co-opted into flight. The origin of flight, and the actual flight capabilities of Archaeopteryx, are debated.
Then there are the debates over... a feather To whom does it belong? New Study Reignites Debate Over Which Species Shed the First Fossil Feather Ever Found
One of the authors of the 2019 study, paleontologist Michael Pittman of the University of Hong Kong, tells the Times the new results “can’t rule out that another bird or other species didn’t drop the feather.”
Yes. that's how it goes with circumstantial evidence.
Based on its wings and feathers,scientists believeArchaeopteryx likely had some aerodynamic abilities. Archaeopteryx had a primitive shoulder girdle that likely limited its flapping abilities, but it also probably lived in areas without big trees for gliding, and its claw structure suggests it probably didn't climb often or perch on trees. "Therefore, we think that it could perform a simple flapping flight over a very short distance, maybe in relation to hunting or escape behavior," Foth said.
There are many many probabilities found in this article.
Jericho
The Bible book of Joshua, written around the time of Joshua, with the aid of his secretary Baruch... although it is claimed by modern creatures to be written much later (610-539 BCE), is the oldest record to relate the events surrounding Jericho's destruction.
Regardless, archaeological discoveries confirm that the city was not destroyed after a long seige, but quickly, and based on the evidence they conclude that the walls fell down, and the city was burned.
Who or what did it? An earthquake... A natural or deliberate fire...? Persons can decide that for themselves, but here is the point.
Yes. the ancient city of Jericho was conquered without a long siege. The Bible got that right, long before recent discoveries, and confirmation of that fact. How did the writer of Joshua know this. Perhaps he was there?
Yes. It was an earth quake, but not a natural one. God caused the quake. He controlled its force. The cities walls crumbled - tumbled down.
Earthquakes were common in the valley of Jericho's location, and based on the evidence uncovered, the walls of Jericho came tumbling down. Once again, the Bible got that detail correct, long before recent discoveries.How did the writer of Joshua know? Coincidence?
Yes. The fire was deliberate. Joshua and his army set the city ablaze, after they rescued Rahab and her relatives.
Yes. The grain was torched because the Israelites were under strict command not to take any spoil... only utencils. Fire razed the city, burning the grain, and leaving clear evidence for later discovery. Again. The Bible got that correct. Way ahead of discovery, centuries later.We have to ask. How did the writer of Joshua know? How could the storyteller be so accurate? Just one of those coincidental things?
Yes. the evidence does not contradict the Biblical account.
In fact, the evidence supports the truthfulness of the Bible.
The writer knew, because he wrote a first hand account of events he knew of. It's a primary source.
This is just one example of thousands, where the evidence for the reliability of the Bible is seen by millions... as you can see... hopefully based on examination of evidence.
Image a detective entering a scene where a dead body is found. The room is full of items. A foot away from the body, the detective sees a rope. Oh. It's just a coincidence that the rope is lying there. As he stoops to examine the body, he sees a button, with a strand of thread. Oh. It's just a coincidence that button is there.
You think! This is the way of the skeptic. He ignores evidence, and then says, I don't see any. It's all coincidence.
What the detective saw is evidence. What they tell is a different story.
The detective needs to examine the evidence to determine what they indicate.
If the person was strangled, and there are marks on his neck, the evidence the rope was used is strong.
The button did not come from the victims shirt. The fact it's lying there is strong evidence - possibly it belongs to someone who was in the room - perhaps there was a struggle with the murderer.
It's all evidence.
The conclusions reached are not based on subjective opinions or beliefs, but careful investigation.
In both cases, reasoning, and interpretation of those facts, is required.
I don't see any difference between evidence for faith, and scientific evidence, where direct evidence isisn't involved.
If you see a difference, then please, i would like to hear it.
I've been asking that question on these forums, for quite some time. I haven't yet, got a responce that does not just make the claim, but gives an explanation.
Oh. one thing. With the evidence for faith, it's not a case of "We think." "Probably." "Likely." "Maybe." The evidence is so concrete, that we are sure of what conclusion that evidence leads to.
I think some of you feel the same way about science, and what scientists believe. So there is no difference there either, as far as I can see.
Archaeopteryx remains transitional whether you regard it as a bird-like dinosaur or a dinosaur-like bird. Emphasis does not alter its status as transitional. Good grief.
