A contradiction in terms?
Only to a pedant. It’s pretty clear what that means.
No it is not clear. For even if you “confirmed” a hypothesis as 99.99999% true does it mean it is true? If you understand the “science” of hypothesis testing you know you never confirm a hypothesis, you only reject the alternative, at some probability level, but you never know what you did not reject is true or not. And also if what you reject has only a probability of 0.000001% it does not say that what’s rejected is impossible, only improbable. Science is about falsification and not confirmation.
It is very clear.
One thing I didn’t add, because it was obvious, is that science has a different standard of proof from metaphysics.
Ah but has metaphysics a proof at all? If we all have proof of what is true, metaphysically, why are we still debating it after all the eons of human existence? We can agree on what science means because it has clear meaning, eg to reject H1 at a certain level of confidence, and what “accepting” H0 entails, but no where does science per se says it is truth, but only to its religious adherents.
Not that that is relevant; but in any case it isn’t inappropriate to speak of things being true in science, just as it isn’t inappropriate to refer to inductive confirmation, where an instance of a generalisation confirms it (such as the observation of a black raven).
“True” in the sense of scientific truth, ie as accepted so by the scientific method, which means that it is the “best” explanation so far, is acceptable, if people know what they are talking about. But to posit scientific “facts” as Truth, metaphysically, is dangerous, disingenuous and entirely devious. So evolution is only a “fact” in science, but a poor one for there are yet other alternative hypotheses to evolution, ie macro evolution and not micro evolution, that cannot be rejected primae facie by the same evidences for which evolution is inducted.
Still, no one did posit them as metaphysical truths.
How is evolution a “poor” explanation? What are these alternatives you mention?
In any case, the evidence that supports macroevolution is what would be expected given the basic mechanism of microevolution, such as transitional species in the fossil record, examined phylogenetic relationships and the existence of biological structures that are teleologically inefficient (and so indicative of a goal-blind process).
How is that a good alternative? It’s less parsimonious, for one thing, and phylogenetics provides evidence against it, for another.
I don’t think any theory can be called a fact. Even if the hypothesis is 99% accurate, the remaining 1% leaves room to turn the original hypothesis on its head.
The classic example here is Relativity. A seemingly insignifigant unknown, the nature of light, completely revolutionizes the cosmological model.
It’s quite conceivable, and seemingly as probable as improbable, that a unified field theory could bear out a 6000 year old universe.
I’m not supporting Creationism, but I think people need to realize that the theories proposed by scientists today might in no way resemble those of tomorrow. The door for discovery is always wide open.
BTW-I think most evolutionary theorists, when they’re not being attacked by Creationists, would admit the theory is shaky at best. IMHO, they’d stress that something resembling evolution took place, but the mechanism (mutation) is in serious doubt.
I think the real problem with creationism is that they force scientists to make take a hard stand on evolution, rather than doing what they should be doing, which is criticizing the theory.
It looks as if you are confusing “theory” with “hypothesis” here. As I illustrated before, they are not synonymous. Evolution is called a fact because there is no doubt that it happened, given the mass of confirmatory evidence. And this evidence is not going anywhere. As I said, science does not share the same standard of proof as metaphysics or mathematics because it cannot.
How did you conclude that? A 6000-year old universe is about the most implausible thing imaginable. The whole of science would need to be overturned and thrown away for this to happen, and supernatural entities would need to be invoked.
No, they would not say it was shaky. It’s true that we are still working out the mechanisms of how it occurs, but such is the progressive nature of science. No one in science doubts that it happens and has been happening for several billion years.
I agree. If creationists want anyone to listen to them they should do some hard science to back up their claims. I wouldn’t say they force scientists to do anything, however, as their lack of objective method removes any credibility in their ideas. All I see creationists doing is misrepresenting evolution, being selective with data, interpreting things as they wish without considering alternatives, creating false dilemmas and so on. Science will not take them seriously until they actually produce some proper scientific research into the matter, and I have yet to see any.
No, just the nature of time. The whole of science could remain intact.
are you saying, the 16 billion years that science estimates to be the age of the universe was compressed into 6000 years?
i wish to remark that not only is there a C14 method, but also, a uranium 138 method, and some decent geological evidence that earth did, in fact, not arise some 6000 years ago
geographically speaking;
the speed of the changes is measurable, now if you look at the ammount of changes, it is clear that they cannot have taken place in 6000 years, not in this world…
biologically speaking;
the mechanism behind genetical differentiation is well-known, don’t ask me to explain the whole damn meïosis for ya, it’d take a few pages…
i’m gonna leave it at that, i’ll come back and check on this thread later
this was my first contribute to the philosophy of this board, btw…
greetz to yall
willem
[size=100]
[b]Those who truly believe in the Bible believe based on FAITH.
Science tells us many things about our past, present, and future. Scientific methods explain origins and help men to create wondrous things. This knowledge is given to us through time and dedication. It is through time that Man learns from his mistakes and corrects them, makes Himself BETTER. But Man is prideful in that he thinks he can explain the WORLD. Fortunately, we are [u]finite[/u].
God tells us in the Bible that we are limited to 120 years. [/size][/b] [size=84][Now the ancient Biblical calendars may be slightly off due to translation from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic] [/size] [size=100] [b]
Look in your book of world records and see if there is any one person older than 120? This is just one FACT, although once presented - the many Demons around us who have control of this earth under Satan’s command will find some way to LIE, CHEAT, and CHANGE any scientific proof that Christians obtain. It’s a spiritual war, everyday, and I believe History is moving us towards destruction.
Anyone that reads this has certain Gifts. These gifts may be much different from one reader to the next as no one person has an exact duplicate. God has given us these independent qualities, yet our freedom allows us to choose between “good & evil,”/“right & wrong.” Society has been moving us in a direction rapidly the past hundred years through Media and Entertainment so that we are now DESCENSATIZED to those Wrongs-(sin).
If there has been a spiritual war for as long as the age of the Earth, don’t you think that Satan and 1/3 of the Angels he took with him would try as hard as they could to get others to join with them and disobey God? Everywhere you look and where you leave to go each day there is a demon. And while I cant fully explain their complete nature, I can either let the demons of this earth to deceive me, or I can allow God to[/size][/b][size=84] - as a choice under HIS free will gift - [/size][b][size=100]enter my life, then devote my 100% belief in Him and a trusting acceptance of His will for your life. That’s called faith. It’s hard to have faith in a world where people that claim to be Christians do such terrible things.
For the “Logical” and “Factual” thinkers:
You’ve got faith in that chair you sat down in today, in front of your computer. Now someone may take that chair away from beneath you and test your assurance. And Philosophers may also denote the reality of the chair, while adding a possibility of another dimension. Yet you’ll always know it’s there because you see it. Even Darwin saw the error of his philosophy. Read his book, you’ll find it, if you’re looking for it. (Hint:eye) Error is a human characteristic. It mean’s we’re not perfect and the means we’re Finite.[/b]
[/size]
I stumbled upon this site on accident; however, I was intrigued with what others thought about different philosophies. I’m not going to return and check this thread because I’ve got Faith in what I believe and I do not need the assurance or difference of opinion that others on this site provide. I cannot apologize for leaving this article in the “religious†forum, I don’t accept religion. Although, I do accept what I BELIEVE in, and that is my Lord and Savior. Jesus the Messiah.
-Christopher
First, I don’t believe you won’t return to read the responses to your post (curiosity is a bitch). With that said, let me state this (because I know you’ll read it): you’re nuts.
What’s so fantastic is this:
http://www.avirtualdominica.com/mapampo.htm
The oldest living women is as at least 126; you may want to adjust your maniacal posts in the future to reflect this. Oh no, the internet has proven the Bible wrong. (That’s quite a metaphor actually, between science and faith).
You know, I literally hate people that hide behind the curtain of faith. Faith is a huge cause of conflict. What happens when 2 people have faith in opposing concepts? War, death and suffering. They attmept to exterminate each other. Sadly, no one ever wins, and we have nothing but perpetual chaos as a result. The Nazis attempted to wipe out the Jews, and they failed. The Fundamental Muslims want to wipe out the Christians (and vice versa I’ve gathered). Luckily, us poor rational chaps get to live through it with you.
Everyone needs to abandon faith in the unexperienced altogether, and attempt to live by nothing but rational means. I think we’d all be much happier. Go ahead, have faith in fairies, leprecauns and God; whatever makes it easier for you to sleep at night and deal with death. However, when your ignorant, maladaptive beliefs begin to interfere with the lives of others, I must draw the line.
Don’t you find it odd, that how you feel when praying to Jesus is exactly the same way that a Muslim feels when praying to Allah? Who’s God then, really exists? You religious people are basically fighting yourselves; you’re arguing and running off to battle with people who decided to throw just as much faith into an unsubstantiated idea as you did. It’s incredibly ironic and sad at the same time.
I don’t care that people believe in God. If that makes them happier, so be it. However, we cannot function as if anything we have ever experienced has been the result of God or His will, because it could always be the Devil impersonatng Him. Jesus and Mohammed could be prophets of the Devil, sent here to cause people who blindly believe to annihilate each other. Think about it. It could be true. The only laws we can abide by are those that make sense in the tangible reality in which we live. That is the safest way to live by a God’s will, if one even does exist.
I apologize for the curt remarks in the beginning of the post, but I am much too tired to rewrite this. My apologies.
Christopher based himself on the so-called word of God, aka bible. Now i happen to know a guy who’s been occupying himself with looking for discrepanties in both Koran and Bible.
As any sane person expected(this guy isn’t entirely sane, but that’s another story), it contains flaws, why? because it was written by humans, and humans as we all know, are flawed…
God created us? well every single person is a miracle on his own, so to speak, but regarding the flaws in our design, so if he did, he did intend us to suffer…
your beliefs are indeed based on faith, but not anything more…
i like fairies though 
willem
i’d like to add to my own post;
in the bible is written that abraham and his decendants were far older than 120 years… look, i found one of them discrepancies myself 
, you must keep in mind that the bible was written in periods, sentences added, removed, rewritten…
i still like fairies 
willem
If they were using a 360 day cycle as a year when God ordered that man will no longer live past 120 years, it would make the current oldest living person even older than she already is.
Quit while you’re ahead.
Besides, I don’t want to argue about the Bible. I’ve never read it, and don’t plan on doing so either. It’s nothing but a bunch of stories written down by men; that doesn’t make it the word of God.