'How Life Began'

[BGoodForGoodSake]

So you don't feel that the idea that man evolved and is a step in an ongoing process, and simply a product of the environment like all the other animals has any moral implications at all?

No.
However, it appears you do.

Does this have any bearing on your position with this theory?

Where is it written in stone, that science must ignore the non physical? That is trash.

How can we measure the non physical? In order to use the scientific method we need to be able to measure it, and repeat it.

Science can only observe interpret and explain by any means that man has at his disposal.

Man can, science cannot, it has to maintain the rigours of the scientific method.

If I hypothesize that man has a God given morality, and that explains things, than it is scientifically OK.

Sorry explanation alone does not science make. How was that conclusion made? What experiment did you perform?

A theory that says God causes all things to attract and sustain in the order of the universe, is not less scientific than one that says gravity does that.

Gravity is scientific because it is a word used to refer to a force. Then we proceed to describe the actions of this force mathematically and with observation. It is this description of gravity which is science. Not the proclamation that gravity did it.

I was asking you to choose between hypotheses that both explain our existence.

I guess what you are saying is that the hypothesis of evolution cannot explain the origin of life while the hypothesis of creation can.

The scientific method allows the study of a specific phenomenon without worrying about related issues. Creation may have explanatory power, but how do we test it? How can we use the scientific method to support it?

[Jbuza]

I wrote
So you don't feel that the idea that man evolved and is a step in an ongoing process, and simply a product of the environment like all the other animals has any moral implications at all?
You said
No.


OK I disagree.
-------------
How can we measure the non physical?

You cannot, you can only observe its effect.
-------------
it has to maintain the rigors of the scientific method.

I agree, but the scientific method is not limited to the physical. Observations are observations even if theie causes are hidden.
--------------
I wrote
If I hypothesize that man has a God given morality, and that explains things, than it is scientifically OK
You wrote
Sorry explanation alone does not science make. How was that conclusion made? What experiment did you perform?

I disagree with you here. Observations from my own conscience, behavior of others, show me through direct observation that man has a capacity that animals lack. This requires some kind of explanatory model. This is more testable than evolution
--------------
Gravity is scientific because it is a word used to refer to a force. Then we proceed to describe the actions of this force mathematically and with observation. It is this description of gravity which is science. Not the proclamation that gravity did it.


Ok now lets attribute that to God's ability to sustain the worlds on their courses. You show me gravity, and I will show you God's power. They are altering explanations.
----------------
The scientific method allows the study of a specific phenomenon without worrying about related issues. Creation may have explanatory power, but how do we test it? How can we use the scientific method to support it?

Are you so blind that you cannot see that evolution is as testable as creation? We could make predictions based upon creation and see if they are true. We could check to see if organisms are created to survive within their environments, We could look to see if there are better explanations proposed.
---------------

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I wrote
So you don't feel that the idea that man evolved and is a step in an ongoing process, and simply a product of the environment like all the other animals has any moral implications at all?
You said
No.

OK I disagree.
-------------
How can we measure the non physical?

You cannot, you can only observe its effect.

Effects are physical, are they not? How can you attribute an effect to something from only it's effects? In other words we can observe the effects of gravity, but that is the extent of our knowledge.

-------------
it has to maintain the rigors of the scientific method.

I agree, but the scientific method is not limited to the physical. Observations are observations even if theie causes are hidden.

This may be the case, but then the causes are hidden no? And any speculation as to what the cause may be is just speculation is it not? Not science.

--------------
I wrote
If I hypothesize that man has a God given morality, and that explains things, than it is scientifically OK
You wrote
Sorry explanation alone does not science make. How was that conclusion made? What experiment did you perform?

I disagree with you here. Observations from my own conscience, behavior of others, show me through direct observation that man has a capacity that animals lack.

This again may be the case but you need to show this objectively in a measurable way. In the paradigm of science subjective experience is not submissable as evidence. This is the origin of the rigours of science.

This requires some kind of explanatory model. This is more testable than evolution

Perhaps if you read more articles regarding evolution and less on anti evolution papers you might discover you are quite wrong.

In other words it is far easier to measure genetic differences in distinct populations than it is to read a rabbits mind.

--------------
Gravity is scientific because it is a word used to refer to a force. Then we proceed to describe the actions of this force mathematically and with observation. It is this description of gravity which is science. Not the proclamation that gravity did it.
Ok now lets attribute that to God's ability to sustain the worlds on their courses. You show me gravity, and I will show you God's power. They are altering explanations.

Again neither is science, we can call it gobblytygook, the science is in the description of these forces.

----------------
The scientific method allows the study of a specific phenomenon without worrying about related issues. Creation may have explanatory power, but how do we test it? How can we use the scientific method to support it?
Are you so blind that you cannot see that evolution is as testable as creation?

Lets say we have a population of mice and we raise one in a stress free situation and we raise another in an environment in which there are cats.

We can then say that after successive generations that those raised in the cat infested environment will over time be more able to avoid capture.

To test this, after a hundred or so generations we reintroduce cats into the cat free environment. We then measure the mortality rates and see how long it takes this population to reach similar mortality rates to the cat infested population.

As you can see it is very measureable. How can we do the same with creationism?

We could make predictions based upon creation and see if they are true.

Such as? Are these predictions after the fact? Isn't it possible that anything can be explained by creationism?

We could check to see if organisms are created to survive within their environments, We could look to see if there are better explanations proposed.

So if there is a sudden change in environment all of a sudden none of the organisms there are adapted to their environment. Does this prove of disprove creationism?

[Jbuza]

Effects are physical, are they not? How can you attribute an effect to something intelligent? In other words we can observe the effects of gravity, but that is the extent of our knowledge.


Hence the term theory. It is the best working explanation of something unknown
------------
This may be the case, but then the causes are hidden no? And any speculation as to what the cause may be is just speculation is it not? Not science.


Than evolutionary origins are speculation and not science, since they are hidden in the imagined past
------------
This again may be the case but you need to show this objectively in a measurable way. In the paradigm of science subjective experience is not submissable as evidence. This is the origin of the rigors of science.


Where is this carved in stone? Science is the careful use of logic and reason in methodological way to discover truth. I care little how a strict material monist would define science.
-------------
Perhaps if you read more articles regarding evolution and less on anti evolution papers you might discover you are quite wrong.

In other words it is far easier to measure genetic differences in distinct populations than it is to read a rabbits mind.


I will leave your first comment alone. And to the second, what is your point.
-------------
Again neither is science, we can call it gobblytygook, the science is in the description of these forces.


Wrong science is the process to try to discover the truth about the force we label as gravity, if you want to approach it from material monism go to it, you won't have any luck, since you prob. Should just leave gravity alone altogether.
---------------
Lets say we have a population of mice and we raise one in a stress free situation and we raise another in an environment in which there are cats.

We can then say that after successive generations that those raised in the cat infested environment will over time be more able to avoid capture.

To test this, after a hundred or so generations we reintroduce cats into the cat free environment. We then measure the mortality rates and see how long it takes this population to reach similar mortality rates to the cat infested population.

As you can see it is very measureable. How can we do the same with creationism?


LOL Great you have shown that mice will be scared of cats after they see cats killing mice. What is the point? Can you publish the results of your study? How does this point to speciation, evolutionary origins? Do you think mice will fear cats in a created world too?
--------------
Such as? Are these predictions after the fact? Isn't it possible that anything can be explained by creationism?

Isn't it possible that evolution can explain everything? We can see that there is a history of extinction, we do not see more species appearing. IT is reasonable to conclude we are moving away from a creation point.
------------------
So if there is a sudden change in environment all of a sudden none of the organisms there are adapted to their environment. Does this prove of disprove creationism?


I think you want God to mail a private letter to you, before you would find any proof for creation, so it matters little. We see extinction because of this, not significant adaptation.
----------------

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Effects are physical, are they not? How can you attribute an effect to something intelligent? In other words we can observe the effects of gravity, but that is the extent of our knowledge.

Hence the term theory. It is the best working explanation of something unknown

In the case of gravity we only refer to it as a force nothing more nothing less, only so that we have a term to use in describing this force. The theory is in the description of this force not the nature of this force. For instance in Newtons version gravity is an acceleration which causes bodies to follow a particular path. In Einsteins version the folding of space time creates the illusion of a force but the behaviour is identical with the addition that light itself which travels in a straight line will appear to curve due to the curvature of space. As you can see, the theory is in the description not the cause.

------------
This may be the case, but then the causes are hidden no? And any speculation as to what the cause may be is just speculation is it not? Not science.

Than evolutionary origins are speculation and not science, since they are hidden in the imagined past

No the forces which act to change a population still work today. For instance lets say I have a group of cows and put them in an environment in which there is no hay nor grass to eat. What do you think will happen? You will perhaps say that they will die. But are you sure that every individual will certainly perish?

------------
This again may be the case but you need to show this objectively in a measurable way. In the paradigm of science subjective experience is not submissable as evidence. This is the origin of the rigors of science.

Where is this carved in stone?

That's what the scientific method is. It is the observation of the world in an empirical way, an objective study which needs to be repeatable. It is deduction not induction.

Science is the careful use of logic and reason in methodological way to discover truth. I care little how a strict material monist would define science.

Where are you getting this definition? If this were the case than history, and philosophy are science too. This is certainly not the case. The only methodological way in science is the scientific method.
"the step by step process by which scientists investigate hypotheses using experiments"
Anything else can be logos but not science. PERIOD
Look it up if you don't beleive me.

-------------
Perhaps if you read more articles regarding evolution and less on anti evolution papers you might discover you are quite wrong.

In other words it is far easier to measure genetic differences in distinct populations than it is to read a rabbits mind.

I will leave your first comment alone. And to the second, what is your point.

You stated that your idea was more testable than evolution. And I gave you an example of this not being the case. The ability to measure differences in genetic material between populations makes this experiment repeatable and objective.

-------------
Again neither is science, we can call it gobblytygook, the science is in the description of these forces.

Wrong science is the process to try to discover the truth about the force we label as gravity, if you want to approach it from material monism go to it, you won't have any luck, since you prob. Should just leave gravity alone altogether.

??? What is the truth behind the force? What more can we do than do experiments to describe what gravity does?

---------------
Lets say we have a population of mice and we raise one in a stress free situation and we raise another in an environment in which there are cats.

We can then say that after successive generations that those raised in the cat infested environment will over time be more able to avoid capture.

To test this, after a hundred or so generations we reintroduce cats into the cat free environment. We then measure the mortality rates and see how long it takes this population to reach similar mortality rates to the cat infested population.

As you can see it is very measureable. How can we do the same with creationism?

LOL Great you have shown that mice will be scared of cats after they see cats killing mice. What is the point? Can you publish the results of your study? How does this point to speciation, evolutionary origins? Do you think mice will fear cats in a created world too?

Laugh it off, but this is what science is.

Mice after living generations without this pressure may be more prone to fall victim to a cat. That is what we are studying here adaptability.

Is the fall in mortality due to the mice learning or is it due to genetic differences?
Of course this can be published.
It is an experiment of adaptability and the genetic influence on behaviour.
That's not the point, you are assuming a created world, what points to that conclusion? In this study we are only testing adaptability through a study of a population of mice.

--------------
Such as? Are these predictions after the fact? Isn't it possible that anything can be explained by creationism?

Isn't it possible that evolution can explain everything? We can see that there is a history of extinction, we do not see more species appearing.

What understanding of evolution leads you to beleive that extinction is evidence against evolution? What about new forms like the horse and girraffe, they are not found among dinosaurs. Are these not new forms?

IT is reasonable to conclude we are moving away from creation point.
------------------
So if there is a sudden change in environment all of a sudden none of the organisms there are adapted to their environment. Does this prove of disprove creationism?

I think you want God to mail a private letter to you, before you would find any proof for creation, so it matters little. We see extinction because of this, not significant adaptation.
----------------

So a polar bear somehow survived a hike through the desert and ended up in the polar region where God created him? And a North American mountain goat traveled through the arabian desert through the gobi across the berring straight and into the rockies? Why would they be so different from European mountain goats?

Adaptation is a myth?

Don't you want to study something in more detail before declaring that whatever we study will lead to a preconceived conclusion anyways?

You are not interested in these things, science is not your field my friend. For some people the variety in the animal world is a facinating subject and screams to be studied. The persuit is for the knowledge itself. For some this is more valuable than any political or religious ramifications, and/or persuits. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge, that is what science is, lets not politicize it.

[sandy_mcd]

We have the general unity of not only a Creation model that actually fits with the evidence (as expected), but also is at harmony with the broader philosophy of science as it relates to the unification of the disciplines. Thus, the old statement, "Theology is the queen of sciences."
...
If you, again, define "science" in its correct sense, then the above observations simply need to be verified.

You can find this quote on lots of websites, I don't know where it originated.

Theology was once defined as the "Queen of sciences" in the universities of Europe. In this context "science" refers to "an organized body of knowledge" thus including subjects other than biology and the physical sciences, although it includes those as well.

Is this your definition of science, just a general reference to knowledge with a subsection for natural science ? Or are you using the modern definition of science ? [What is a correct definition anyway ?]

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

That's what august has been demanding you and BGood do-define science.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

That's what august has been demanding you and BGood do-define science.

Why should I define it?

You can just look it up.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science

Scientific Method
http://dictionary.reference.com/search? ... c%20method

They don't have dictionaries in Texas?

[Jbuza]

Science is the discovery of truth through systematic study, if you don't believe me than go look it up. I understand that there is a segment that believes science to be only study of the physical world, but it is much more than that.
------------
You said
You stated that your idea was more testable than evolution. And I gave you an example of this not being the case. The ability to measure differences in genetic material between populations makes this experiment repeatable and objective.


Can you demonstrate that the gene pool is actually changed, and that the genetic code doesn't contain mechanisms that allow adaptation. Are the mice really evolved?
----------
What is the truth behind the force? What more can we do than do experiments to describe what gravity does?


Well if you are happy leaving it at that than so be it. Gravity tells us something about the physical world does it not? It tells us there is a force that holds things together. You can describe it as gravity if you wish. God claims to be the force whereby things consist. So then is science just chatter about the world around us with no aim at discovering truth? It is not for me.
-------------
Laugh it off, but this is what science is.


No these are merely the observations, science can take you by the hand and show you Truth if you let it.
-------------
What understanding of evolution leads you to beleive that extinction is evidence against evolution? What about new forms like the horse and girraffe, they are not found among dinosaurs. Are these not new forms?


No they are not new forms. Dinosaurs didn't predate anything
------------
So a polar bear somehow survived a hike through the desert and ended up in the polar region where God created him? And a North American mountain goat traveled through the arabian desert through the gobi across the berring straight and into the rockies? Why would they be so different from European mountain goats?

Adaptation is a myth?


No I think that God created animals that could adapt to their environments to an extent.
------------
Don't you want to study something in more detail before declaring that whatever we study will lead to a preconceived conclusion anyways?


No thanks, no need to reinvent the wheel here. I have already found truth. IT is quite similar really to science interpreting EVERYTHING through evolution goggles
----------
You are not interested in these things, science is not your field my friend. For some people the variety in the animal world is a facinating subject and screams to be studied. The persuit is for the knowledge itself. For some this is more valuable than any political or religious ramifications, and/or persuits. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge, that is what science is, lets not politicize it.


I disagree Science is knowledge for the sake of discovering truth. Are you happy so long as you can say I have knowledge I am smart, but care not whether you come to true conclusions or not?
------------

[Jbuza]

Well I need a break from the welder. LOL
So I will type out from Websters ...

Science

A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences

Systematic knowledge of physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation

Any of the branches of natural or physical sciences

Systematized knowledge in general

Knowledge as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study

a particular branch of knowledge

Skill especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency

[Jac3510]

We have the general unity of not only a Creation model that actually fits with the evidence (as expected), but also is at harmony with the broader philosophy of science as it relates to the unification of the disciplines. Thus, the old statement, "Theology is the queen of sciences."
...
If you, again, define "science" in its correct sense, then the above observations simply need to be verified.

You can find this quote on lots of websites, I don't know where it originated.

Theology was once defined as the "Queen of sciences" in the universities of Europe. In this context "science" refers to "an organized body of knowledge" thus including subjects other than biology and the physical sciences, although it includes those as well.

Is this your definition of science, just a general reference to knowledge with a subsection for natural science ? Or are you using the modern definition of science ? [What is a correct definition anyway ?]

I can't tell you where the coin was phrased, but I got it from J. P. Boice's Abstract of Systematic Theology, c1898. It's available online for free.

(edit: according to Wikipedia, the phrase goes back to the Middle Ages and their educational institutions. See entry on theology)

As for the second part of your post, JB offered a solid definition of science in its broadest sense. You can find similar entries in such Oxford or even the Britannica. Don't confuse "science" with "physical science." One is a subset of the other. And while you are at it, don't impose your philosophy of science on science as a whole. Dangerous game there . . .

[sandy_mcd]

Science is the discovery of truth through systematic study, if you don't believe me than go look it up. I understand that there is a segment that believes science to be only study of the physical world, but it is much more than that.

A story (possibly apocryphal, I must note) is told about Sir Christopher Wren, the brilliant architect who designed St. Paul's Cathedral in London. Following the Great Fire of 1666, Wren was asked to rebuild the devastated cathedral, which he did. Viewing the restoration, Queen Anne is said to have proclaimed it "awful, artificial and amusing." Rather than repairing to his garret to sulk, Wren was thrilled with the royal review, because at that time "awful" meant "awe-inspiring," "artificial" meant "clever" or "artistic," and "amusing" meant roughly "riveting" or "astonishing."

The meaning of words changes with time. The segment you refer to above is now the majority. Your definition was the standard long ago, back when people thought the earth was 6000 years old.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Science is the discovery of truth through systematic study, if you don't believe me than go look it up. I understand that there is a segment that believes science to be only study of the physical world, but it is much more than that.

A story (possibly apocryphal, I must note) is told about Sir Christopher Wren, the brilliant architect who designed St. Paul's Cathedral in London. Following the Great Fire of 1666, Wren was asked to rebuild the devastated cathedral, which he did. Viewing the restoration, Queen Anne is said to have proclaimed it "awful, artificial and amusing." Rather than repairing to his garret to sulk, Wren was thrilled with the royal review, because at that time "awful" meant "awe-inspiring," "artificial" meant "clever" or "artistic," and "amusing" meant roughly "riveting" or "astonishing."

The meaning of words changes with time. The segment you refer to above is now the majority. Your definition was the standard long ago, back when people thought the earth was 6000 years old.

Actually...I had that assertion shot down a long time ago. A church father or apologist or SOMETHING was quoted, and he was musing about how long those days were in the Genesis week-so there

[Jbuza]

The segment you refer to above is now the majority.

Oh! The majority believe that now. How could I have been so foolish.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Science is the discovery of truth through systematic study, if you don't believe me than go look it up. I understand that there is a segment that believes science to be only study of the physical world, but it is much more than that.

You're definition is not the same as mine, we are not talking about the same thing.

------------
You said
You stated that your idea was more testable than evolution. And I gave you an example of this not being the case. The ability to measure differences in genetic material between populations makes this experiment repeatable and objective.

Can you demonstrate that the gene pool is actually changed, and that the genetic code doesn't contain mechanisms that allow adaptation. Are the mice really evolved?

There are mechanisms which allow adaptation, its called variety.
We can demonstrate that the gene pool has changed by measuring the variety in the gene pool in this population of mice. As selection (cats) eliminates traits the variety in the population goes down.

As you can clearly see everything is quite measureable.

----------
What is the truth behind the force? What more can we do than do experiments to describe what gravity does?

Well if you are happy leaving it at that than so be it. Gravity tells us something about the physical world does it not? It tells us there is a force that holds things together. You can describe it as gravity if you wish. God claims to be the force whereby things consist. So then is science just chatter about the world around us with no aim at discovering truth? It is not for me.

Glad you discovered that. Science is just about the knowledge period.

-------------
Laugh it off, but this is what science is.

No these are merely the observations, science can take you by the hand and show you Truth if you let it.

Sorry no, truth of mechanisms but not universal truths. You are making more of science than what it really is. SCIENCE IS A TOOL. Nothing more, no matter what you want it to be.

-------------
What understanding of evolution leads you to beleive that extinction is evidence against evolution? What about new forms like the horse and girraffe, they are not found among dinosaurs. Are these not new forms?

No they are not new forms. Dinosaurs didn't predate anything

Then why are there only primitave mammals along with the dinosaurs?
WHY? I AM CAPITALIZING BECAUSE YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE QUESTIONS WHICH ACTUALLY REQUIRE THOUGHT AND EMPIRICAL SUPPORT.

------------
So a polar bear somehow survived a hike through the desert and ended up in the polar region where God created him? And a North American mountain goat traveled through the arabian desert through the gobi across the berring straight and into the rockies? Why would they be so different from European mountain goats?

Adaptation is a myth?

No I think that God created animals that could adapt to their environments to an extent.

I do not care what you think, show me some data and I will reach my own conclusions. I need data. =)

------------
Don't you want to study something in more detail before declaring that whatever we study will lead to a preconceived conclusion anyways?

No thanks, no need to reinvent the wheel here.

Ergo science is a waste of time to you. My point all along, why bother studying the natural world when you already have all the answers?

I have already found truth. IT is quite similar really to science interpreting EVERYTHING through evolution goggles

Not quite, we are still searching for the answers. Always trying to falsify evolution through experimentation. Are you attempting to falsify your beleifs? I doubt it.

----------
You are not interested in these things, science is not your field my friend. For some people the variety in the animal world is a facinating subject and screams to be studied. The persuit is for the knowledge itself. For some this is more valuable than any political or religious ramifications, and/or persuits. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge, that is what science is, lets not politicize it.

I disagree Science is knowledge for the sake of discovering truth.

*buzzer* wrong!!! Science is about making sence of observations.

Are you happy so long as you can say I have knowledge I am smart, but care not whether you come to true conclusions or not?
------------

It's not about being smart, its about the systematic discovery of the universe.

Methodical and painstaking science slowly uncovers each and every rock to see whats underneath.

You should take up your problems with those who use scientific findings in a worldview protagonistic to your own.

Science is only a collection of observations and the theories associated with them. There are no agenda's here.