Jbuza wrote: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.
Jbuza wrote:------------
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?
Jbuza wrote:------------
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.
Jbuza wrote: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.
Jbuza wrote:-------------
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.
Jbuza wrote:-------------
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?
Jbuza wrote:---------------
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.
Jbuza wrote:--------------
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?
Jbuza wrote: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.
