Evolution vs. Creation- serious discussion only please

Post Reply New Topic

Greenblue:

You're confusing hypotheses/theories with with the evidence used to support them. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, we're still arguing geocentrism vs. heliocentrism with no more evidence than the typical observer in a fixed position with no more tools than our own two eyes. With no more evidence than either of us had, I could perfectly well make a well-evidenced argument that the sun revolves around the earth. You could make a similar case for the sun being the center of the universe by showing how a spinning earth creates the illusion of the sun moving around the earth.

Either way, neither argument changes the fact that the sun still rises and sets, which was the real evidence in the first place.

Evidence doesn't change in scientific inquiry. Whatever observation you make at a given point in time, THAT'S the observation you're required to document.

You might, for example, note that I'm sitting on a couch right now. The fact I'm sitting on a couch in and of itself isn't special. But the question is why. I would say I'm just supervising my children while they sit on the floor watching a movie. You might observe my behavior on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday and say that I'm in the habit of doing so. And then you might notice that I don't sit here the same time on the weekends. And then on Wednesday you might note I'm not here because I'm at a band rehearsal. So you might induce that, provided nothing out of the ordinary happens, then I spend time sitting on the couch at this time every day.

How those conclusions are useful is anyone's guess, but that's foundational to elementary scientific observation. Certain things you cannot change: You CANNOT change the evidence to suit whatever you want it to mean. The plain fact is that, at this moment in time, I was observed sitting on my couch. That may change in 5 minutes, but the observation has already been made and documented as being a record of this exact point in time. This cannot be changed, no more than you can prevent the sun from rising. It is an absolute.

I don't mean to imply that EVERYTHING is absolute. I may or may not be sitting here at this same time next week. Ptolemaic theory worked because it allowed people to make accurate predictions. But so does Copernican theory. So why discard one theory for another? Well, further observation might reveal something assumed to be true may not actually be so. Perhaps there is a good reason why I sit on the couch when I watch movies with my kids. But perhaps, on a whim, I decide I'd rather sit on a recliner. Why? Perhaps my wife's friend came over and was sitting on the couch. That would appear to falsify claim that I always sit on the couch. You could no longer make an absolute claim that I always sit on the couch at this time every day because you absolutely DID observe me once sitting in the chair. You might have to adjust the claim to say that USUALLY or NORMALLY I sit on the couch this time every day, but on certain days I'm not even here and on others we have house guests who prevent me from sitting on the couch.

Thus you can't absolutely say I always sit on the couch. But you CAN absolutely say that I DID sit on the couch. That would be an absolute truth.

When we talk about something being falsifiable, we're talking about things that can be tested. When you test something, you gather information about its state at a given point in time. Test results don't change. Now, the same results may not match up with later test results. It just means that the results have been affected by some unknown factor. The orbits of planets, for instance, have a high degree of predictability. But when astronomers first began recording the positions of planets and predicting the position of certain outer planets, they noticed that the planets were NOT where they were supposed to be. The only explanation was that there HAD to be some other planet whose gravitational force was affecting the position of the observed planet. And given time, the planet that was affecting the position of the other was eventually discovered. Given the known effect of the gravitational force of one planet on another, accurate predictions could again be made. The idea that the planets followed a specific orbital path could be predicted and those predictions tested is the essence of falsifiability. But falsifiability relies on absolute evidence, observations that cannot be undone.

To say that there are NO absolutes is to suggest that the results of a particular test are in flux. To deny the absoluteness of a set of observed data is absurd.

You are claiming that there are some observations that cannot be denied. This can be true in formal abstract systems but not in reality.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Albert Einstein

Actually, trigonometry in relation to physics seems fairly certain.

The assumption that the measurements taken are always in precise accord with the mathematical constants is invalid.

Measurements are never absolutely accurate, but the conformity to trigonometric funct... heck, for all you complain about creationists trying to bring the world back into the dark ages, if you just reject the relationship between vectors and physics you automatically eliminate technology in general.

Can you agree that when an object is traveling in an exact circular path, that its speed in traveling that circular path is exactly the circumference divided by the time that it takes for one revolution?

What is six times six? How much thought did you have to give it? I'm betting you didnt give much thought to the facts: you knew what the answer was. If I claim it is 37, you have no cognitive dissonance about my claims. You spend no time on my nonsense.

More complicated axioms than this are used to assemble a persons perception, and the ability to navigate these correctly seem to be the basis of stratified intelligence. The adoption of stereotypes and automatic responses is a short cut to success in the face of a problem. The goal of science(and logic) is to sort these schema into useful and junk categories so as to advance the human condition.

Sports follows this philosophy as well. The martial artist and the runner are taught to minimize extraneous motion and to abrogate negative thought.

It is our biological imperative to discard the nonsense in our perceptions and the useless actions.

You're confusing hypotheses/theories with with the evidence used to support them. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, we're still arguing geocentrism vs. heliocentrism with no more evidence than the typical observer in a fixed position with no more tools than our own two eyes. With no more evidence than either of us had, I could perfectly well make a well-evidenced argument that the sun revolves around the earth. You could make a similar case for the sun being the center of the universe by showing how a spinning earth creates the illusion of the sun moving around the earth.

To say that there are NO absolutes is to suggest that the results of a particular test are in flux. To deny the absoluteness of a set of observed data is absurd.

Ok, well, so your justification lies under mere evidence rather than the methodology used by working with them? then I don't see how that undermines sand's position and how it favors yours, I mean, evidence by itself doesn't seem to do much without a proper methodology and the need of developing theories, and given that we are dealing with absolutism here, rather than levels of certainties, the scientific method rejects absolutism and the development of scientific theories are done avoiding that.

So people appealing towards scientific skepticism happen to reject knowing of absolute truth, they don't seem to have any conflict with that, from a scientific framework, as you want to make it seem to be, so your objection seems meaningless, unless you want to appeal to philosophical skepticism to some degree or something else, other than that that doesn't seem to be the case, unless the person denies that absolute truth cannot exist independently of humans, which I doubt this is the case. And evidence are not considered to actually prove scientific theories, rather, support and disprove.


Who said there are no absolutes? Did someone said that absolute truth doesn't exist? or that absolute truths don't exist independently of humans, therefore they don't exist at all? I don't see any clear indication of any of that being the case, if you really think that this is about denying the existence of absolute truth then you are still failing to understand the original point.

What is the meaning of absolute truth in the absence of humans?

That the universe would go on without us, since reality is far larger than our minds.

I'll go along with that assumption but it has nothing to do with absolute truth.

Absolute truth has to do with the nature of reality being independent of ourselves. "Relative truth" contrarily assumes that "truth" is whatever we make it.

Define 'absolute truth'?