[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
The Bible does not give options that pertain to science.
And I questioned you on “empirical science” because it was obvious you do not understand the term. We have done empirical science on the moon. We’ve been there and we brought back pieces of the moon. Furthermore, we’ve had satellites orbiting the moon for decades, recording every aspect of the sphere. We’ve taken these objects and data, we analyzed them in more ways than all the believers in the world can imagine, and we used them to produce our current understanding of how the moon formed, what it is made of, its internal structure, and its behavior. This is exactly what empirical science is and does.
And that is why I said in so many words that what the experts know, they know from empirical science. You cannot get around that with innuendo, insults, or half-assed creationist nonsense.
You won’t find anybody anywhere who knows anything whatsoever about science to agree with your notions. They are anti-scientific, and emerge from purest ignorance about science and the scientific process. Don’t look here for kindness when it comes to deliberate ignorance. And yours is obviously deliberate.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if you could kindly explain how they arrived at the conclusion that something hit the earth and the moon popped out from all their empirical science, I would be much obliged. Thank you.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
For the tree, take a look at this. In fact, you should browse through all of talkorigins.org and be enlightened.
It’s clear that you don’t understand the scientific meanings of hypothesis, theory, and fact. Informally, a hypothesis is an initial suggestion. If this has been tested, and has not been falsified, and is in accord with all the available evidence, it can get promoted to a theory, which is the strongest thing you can say about a mechanism. or explanation. A fact is an observation.
As for evolution, say, we have observed species evolve both naturally and in the lab. Speciation is a fact, thus evolution is a fact. How things evolve, descent with modification, is a theory, but about as strong a one as you can get. There are details of the mechanisms involved with are hypotheses, and many hypotheses in the past have been falsified.
For the age of the earth, we have observations of radioactive decay, and observations of measurements of the percentage of various isotopes in rocks. We have astronomical observations that indicate that natural laws are pretty much constant as far back as we can see. (A lot further than 6,000 years.) We have the independent evidence of the fossil record. We have independent evidence found on the moon. We have the red shift, and evidence of the Big Bang. Add it all up, and we have a pretty damn strong theory about the age of the universe and the Earth.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the link.
Well, as far as I know, (notice the qualifier that all the people who want to will use to my detriment) all scientists have actually observed is species evolving into more animals of a same or similar species. In other words dogs and cats still produce something that can be classified as a dog or a cat. (simple logic for my simple mind) Some “creationists” call this micro-evolution and contrat it with the unobservable change from one ty pe of animal or organism to a completely different type, like fish to birds or mammals. Forgive my ignorance, but it seems like all of us are creationists. It just depends on who is doing the creating.
Well, as far as I know, (notice the qualifier that all the people who want to will use to my detriment) all scientists have actually observed is species evolving into more animals of a same or similar species. In other words dogs and cats still produce something that can be classified as a dog or a cat. (simple logic for my simple mind) Some “creationists” call this micro-evolution and contrat it with the unobservable change from one ty pe of animal or organism to a completely different type, like fish to birds or mammals. Forgive my ignorance, but it seems like all of us are creationists. It just depends on who is doing the creating.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Baldwin]
I like discussions like this because it’s a chance to serve the goal of fighting ignorance – including mine, since I always seem to learn something I didn’t know. (As Will Rogers said, “Everybody’s ignorant, just in different ways.”) Of course, sometimes there’s willful ignorance, where you might as well talk to a wall.
[/QUOTE]
How may walls does it take to enclose one enquiring mind?
[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Well, if you could kindly explain how they arrived at the conclusion that something hit the earth and the moon popped out from all their empirical science, I would be much obliged. Thank you.
[/QUOTE]
Dude, I was talking about you. All the great ideas and discoveries of real scientific work are available to you, and I think you have the basic cognitive ability necessary to understand the processes and conclusions involved – yet you choose to wall your mind into an odd cosmic fantasy. I won’t call it a theory, because in science a theory is subservient to observations and accepted principles, whereas your picture of the past requires contrary facts to be ignored or twisted beyond recognition.
If you’re serious about having an enquiring mind, I think you’ve gotten onto the wrong track at some point in your life. It’s not too late to start over. Here’s a plan:
Just put aside for the time being the conclusions you think are true.
Start studying science at the grade-school level. I’m not insulting you; it can be very helpful to go back to basics. Read some popular books about the history of scientists and the evolution of the scientific method. I can particularly recommend almost any nonfiction on the subject by Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Stephen J. Gould (all of whom are deceased – help me out here, guys, who’s a really good science popularizer these days?)
Just for fun, check out www.badastronomy.com , run by astronomer and sometime Doper Phil Plait.
Using logical, scientific principles, and based on the best available data, try and work out your own conclusions.
And if you just hang around here on the SDMB, you’ll encounter gen-ew-ine Ph.D.'s and lots of interested laymen who are happy to talk about real science.
Well, as far as I know, (notice the qualifier that all the people who want to will use to my detriment) all scientists have actually observed is species evolving into more animals of a same or similar species. In other words dogs and cats still produce something that can be classified as a dog or a cat. (simple logic for my simple mind) Some “creationists” call this micro-evolution and contrat it with the unobservable change from one ty pe of animal or organism to a completely different type, like fish to birds or mammals. Forgive my ignorance, but it seems like all of us are creationists. It just depends on who is doing the creating.
[/QUOTE]
To avoid getting into an evolution hijack, I’ll just say that what is important is whether what is observed matches what is predicted by a theory or hypothesis. If it does, then the theory is supported (but not proven.) If it does not, then the theory is falsified - assuming no one goofed up, of course. So for your example, the question to ask is what evolution predicts.
I can’t help but wonder, every time I see what “great strides” science is making, what scientists will “know” years from now when they have even more information and technology. Eventually, everything we know about creation will require some re-thinking. Think about it.
[QUOTE=Baldwin] srmclauren:
Dude, I was talking about you. All the great ideas and discoveries of real scientific work are available to you, and I think you have the basic cognitive ability necessary to understand the processes and conclusions involved – yet you choose to wall your mind into an odd cosmic fantasy. I won’t call it a theory, because in science a theory is subservient to observations and accepted principles, whereas your picture of the past requires contrary facts to be ignored or twisted beyond recognition.
If you’re serious about having an enquiring mind, I think you’ve gotten onto the wrong track at some point in your life. It’s not too late to start over. Here’s a plan:
Just put aside for the time being the conclusions you think are true.
Start studying science at the grade-school level. I’m not insulting you; it can be very helpful to go back to basics. Read some popular books about the history of scientists and the evolution of the scientific method. I can particularly recommend almost any nonfiction on the subject by Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Stephen J. Gould (all of whom are deceased – help me out here, guys, who’s a really good science popularizer these days?)
Just for fun, check out www.badastronomy.com , run by astronomer and sometime Doper Phil Plait.
Yeah, I looked at badastronomy. Interesting stuff.
Honest, I really appreciate the constructive advice. I knew you were talking about me. I just wanted you to see that from my perspective, tallking to some “dopers” is pretty much the same. They are insulated from absolute truth by all the years of being programmed with relativism. But there is hope. Consider, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” Is this absolute or relative? …or both? When you gave me the beginnings of a list of writers on the scientific method and history, it reminded me of a song by Pat Liston of “Mama’s Pride” that has an interesting line: “I don’t want to hear about Socrates or Darwin or all the things that Confucius said, 'Cause when my Jesus died, He rose again in glory, but all these men who died are still dead.” For the rest of the song, we would have to go to the Great Debates. Just for fun, and profit, check it out.