Science is a tool that can be abused!

[_The CCC]

There are a few on this site that say theory is indeed fact. Just ask Spotlight if evolution is fact he will be glad to tell you.

The redshift of distant starlight is interpreted as an expanding universe. It seems you are just as caught up with declaring things fact as the rest of them.[/quote]

Evolution is a fact. The explanation of that fact is a theory.

The Red Shift is a fact. The explanation of that fact is the Theory of the Red Shift.


All you have to do is come up with a better explanation of those observed facts. Good luck with both.

[_huckelberry]

evolution?
There is the alternative theory proposed by Christians locked into Biblical inerrancy that God made the world as if evolution and great time had already happen. He was in a hurry so just skipped letting all the time before Adam actually happen. That prior time is just an idea in Gods mind which he used to determine all the different kinds of rocks fossils mountains etc etc. which we find.

I am not sure if Franktalk has any interest in that theory but it arrived by a similar evidence free path, one of which he might approve.

Though for those who like odd puzzles, it might be interesting to distinguish events for the world which exist in Gods mind as part of creation from events that actually happened. For most theists what is in Gods mind is the thing most real. (no?)

[_spotlight]

evolution?
There is the alternative theory proposed by Christians locked into Biblical inerrancy that God made the world as if evolution and great time had already happen. He was in a hurry so just skipped letting all the time before Adam actually happen. That prior time is just an idea in Gods mind which he used to determine all the different kinds of rocks fossils mountains etc etc. which we find.

I am not sure if Franktalk has any interest in that theory but it arrived by a similar evidence free path, one of which he might approve.

Though for those who like odd puzzles, it might be interesting to distinguish events for the world which exist in Gods mind as part of creation from events that actually happened. For most theists what is in Gods mind is the thing most real. (no?)

The only problem with this idea of creation with age is the fact that our DNA which determines what we are just happens to agree with the arrangement that looks as if we share a common ancestor. That is a big pill to swallow.

[_spotlight]

The point is you believe there is a point where a theory moves into being fact. You have done so with evolution yet we have just begun to really understand the mechanism of life. You also refuse to accept that the future holds things we can't even imagine today. This means that everything we think we know may be just a wrong interpretation of the data. You believe you are right. Thus a belief system. One in which you refuse to acknowledge.

Again to repeat others who responded first the theory exists to explain the fact. The degree of ignorance about the mechanism of life does not enter into the observed fact of evolution. It may have much to do with the eventual explanation (theory) however.

Well, that the future will have things that we have not yet imagined is a tautology. But if they are things that we can't in principle even presently imagine, then you must at least accept, in principle, the evolution of the human mind or the creation of thinking artificial lifeforms.

Everything we think we know may be a wrong interpretation of the data?

Here is the way interpretation of data progresses if points represent data gathered and planes represent theories available to explain the points. Geometrically many planes can exist. If we require a point to be in the plane then we have eliminated the vast majority of planes. If we further require the plane we are looking for to pass through two points we eliminate more planes. Finally when we have three noncollinear points we are reduced to a single plane that will pass through those points.

There comes a time, as with evolution, that there are so many data points beyond what are necessary to identify the plane that all lie within that plane that we concede the plane has been identified. This is referred to as being over constrained or over determined. In nature over determination is always consistent because nature really exists and is self consistent whereas in math it means having more equations than unknowns and the result is usually without a solution even though it may have one workable solution.

There really isn't a way to have "a wrong interpretation" of that much data.

[_Franktalk]

There are a few on this site that say theory is indeed fact. Just ask Spotlight if evolution is fact he will be glad to tell you.

The redshift of distant starlight is interpreted as an expanding universe. It seems you are just as caught up with declaring things fact as the rest of them.

Evolution is a fact. The explanation of that fact is a theory.

The Red Shift is a fact. The explanation of that fact is the Theory of the Red Shift.


All you have to do is come up with a better explanation of those observed facts. Good luck with both.[/quote]

Gene expression is a fact. Populations do have some more fit than others to adapt. Mutations do happen. These are observed facts. But to now make the leap and say that all life on this earth is a result of these processes is a belief system. It does not matter if I have additional data or not. The best guess of a group of people is still a best guess no matter how well you wrap it up and place lipstick on it.

[_Franktalk]

Again to repeat others who responded first the theory exists to explain the fact.

The theory exist in order to interpret the facts inside of a paradigm. The paradigm may be wrong. If so then the theory is more than likely wrong. It is so simple Spotlight.

[_spotlight]

But to now make the leap and say that all life on this earth is a result of these processes is a belief system.

What do you mean by "all life" here? All presently found living upon the earth or do you mean life long since dead?
We can look at the DNA of all living lifeforms and see that they are all related.
If your creators placed lifeforms on the earth that have died off and were never related to current lifeforms then their creation/transplantation failed to take hold and endure to the present.

[_spotlight]

The theory exist in order to interpret the facts inside of a paradigm. The paradigm may be wrong. If so then the theory is more than likely wrong. It is so simple Spotlight.

If it's so simple present an alternate paradigm that leads to an alternate interpretation of all of the data.

(This is where Frank will ask me to chill and enjoy my weekend, while he quietly escapes for a bit, returning later having ignored the challenge)

[_Franktalk]

The only problem with this idea of creation with age is the fact that our DNA which determines what we are just happens to agree with the arrangement that looks as if we share a common ancestor. That is a big pill to swallow.

Let us just say for a moment that I am right about the inward journey. Let us say that if we take the journey with idols in our heart then we get mirrored back our idols. Now let us say that everything around us can be interpreted a number of ways. It could also be designed a number of ways. What if the way it is designed is similar to the Bible? Can it be that nature around us can be interpreted in such a way that it is a stumbling block? Was enough wiggle room designed into what we see around us to stumble on?

You see in my belief system we are the designers. We are not fooling another we are fooling ourselves. So if we design in a way to interpret life as self made then it adds to the realism of the game. But we don't lie. There must be enough real truth available to uncover what is true. But that path is not the way that science uses. So truth remains hidden. It is not a lie, it is just that we know how our avatars think.

[_Franktalk]

If it's so simple present an alternate paradigm that leads to an alternate interpretation of all of the data.

(This is where Frank will ask me to chill and enjoy my weekend, while he quietly escapes for a bit, returning later having ignored the challenge)

I have described the inward path to you. You refuse to take it. It is not my fault that you decide what you decide.

Now the second best choice is to chill out.