What are the questions science cannot answer?

[IamJoseph]

Wait a minute, if I am correct then both are on equal footing as valid scientific speculation.

No, this is not so, else I would not make a superfluous statement. I pointed out, correctly, that the science is on the side of a universe creator [cause and effect], while the emotive requirement of proof is absent for both sides equally and thus negated and not applicable.

There is no scientific or other alternative to a universe maker based on a finite realm; all of science goes down when this is challenged. Galeleo did not say the world is not flat - he had to prove this premise. What is your proof, evidence or any other premise the universe emerged by itself - which science principle?

 

[IamJoseph]

What is the universe made of?

Not of anything which existed before or within the universe, thus there is nothing to compare it with. Once, the universe and everything in it never ever existed - else the finite factor is violated.

All your questions are based on one factor: origins. None of these can be answered, and not due to a lacking in the human mind. They are mysteriously and critically barred from our mind's wiring by a threshold which cannot be voluntarilly breached. This appears true even when we can fathom a millionth nano second of the big bang - it is still this side of origins. If this premise is held, as it is now, it comes from Genesis, which says we will have dominion of everything in the universe from B-Z, but the first A is witheld. Go forth from this point.

This is scientifically valid based on a finite universe: the mind's wiring are post-uni. It is akin to a pineapple seeking to fathom the farmer.

 

[IamJoseph]

Cite 7 peer reviewed papers from the last 10 years that support this or retract the statement.

I did. Cause and effect. Now state your paper reviews which can contradict, based on a finite realm.

 

[IamJoseph]

Let me give you an example of how a prism can affect science real quick. Now this is just my opinion but it may be pretty accurate.

I see lots of new theories coming up that deal with our universe, see our universe has so many laws and constants and fine tuned structures that if any one of them was any different we wouldn't be here. So there seems to be a grand design to our universe, most scientists are athiests so they mostly don't like this as it is. So much more research goes into theories that involve multiple dimensions, multiple universes, things that give random chance more priority than a singular universe structure theory would get.. far more acceptance is given to these theories just based on the fact of a faith in math and odds.

So any theory that gives the possibility that the laws of our universe were actually put in place by some kind of creator doesn't get as much attention. A notion that maybe we are an experiment or we are here from a design is shot down even though neither theory has no empirical evidence to back it up.

MV contradicts a finite universe. Better, you first preamble which uni you are discussing - there are only two possibilities.

Scientists correctly avoid Creator, as this would abrutly stop all scientific progress. Better, science must be seen as a faculty which emerged post-universe, as with all other faculties like history, geograhy, philosophy, etc - from precedent laws being set. Science or any other faculty cannot tell us anything about origins - because science is a post-universe faculty. Its like asking what does a new color look like.

Science is based on laws. And those are post-universe; else we would be able to grow universes in the kitchen or they would grow beside pineapples.

 

[IamJoseph]

Unless my eyes are fading with age, the hippopotamus--an artiodactyl (cloven-hoofed mammal) that does not chew its cud--is not mentioned anywhere in the material you quoted.

You have not responded to the peer review of your assertion, and instead have pressed your argument forward as though it has been defended. This is a textbook case of intellectual dishonesty, the worst form of trolling on a website devoted to science and scholarship.Don't worry, the next one will be permanent. Cleaning up after Joseph is more work than a staff of volunteers can handle, and we're getting fed up with it.

The charge was:

"As usual, Joseph is pretending to be an expert on a topic about which he knows virtually nothing: science. In this case, biology. He has already made a fool of himself by claiming that pigs are the only artiodactyls that don't chew their cud (the hippopotamus also does not.) On the heels of that embarrassing failure, he's back with more religiously-inspired bullshit about the same group of mammals: artiodactyls."

Clearly, this is not the case, judging by the opinions of a host of varied sourced links by various scientific and other figures - interlectual dishonesty cannot possibly apply here, specially not by an isolated sub-set.

You have to read the evidences provided again - they do cater to your isolated questions which are a sub-set of the main premise - a desperate clinging effect of one wrongly percieved distinction of one animal. Clearly, you have also very conveniantly disregarded the correctness blatantly evidenced in millions of examples derived from the premise you are rejecting: these cannot be co-incidental or guesmatics which prevail for 1000's of years and within billions of life forms. Bite the bullet.

 

[IamJoseph]

Cleaning up after Joseph is more work than a staff of volunteers can handle, and we're getting fed up with it.

Your singular sub-set arguements are wrong. Obviously, the charge of being fed up is valid - you should be fed up with the amount of evidences against your premise. Nominating a pig as habouring a unique trait among all other trillions of life forms - is one of the most astounding declarations in all written texts - which you have chosen to ignore.

Artiodactyla - Definition

Even-toed ungulates

Mountain Goat
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Artiodactyla

Families
Suidae
Hippopotamidae
Tayassuidae
Camelidae
Tragulidae
Moschidae
Cervidae
Giraffidae
Antilocapridae
Bovidae


The even-toed ungulates form the mammal order Artiodactyla. They are ungulates whose weight is borne about equally by the third and fourth toes, rather than mostly or entirely by the third as in perissodactyls. There are about 220 artiodactyl species, including many that are of great economic importance to humans.

As with many mammal groups, even-toed ungulates first appeared during the Early Eocene (about 54 million years ago). In form they were rather like today's chevrotains: small, short-legged creatures that ate leaves and the soft parts of plants. By the Late Eocene (46 million years ago), the three modern suborders had already developed: Suina (the pig group); Tylopoda (the camel group); and Ruminantia (the goat and cattle group). Nevertheless, artiodactyls were far from dominant at that time: the odd-toed ungulates (ancestors of today's horses and rhinos) were much more successful and far more numerous. Even-toed ungulates survived in niche roles, usually occupying marginal habitats, and it is presumably at that time that they developed their complex digestive systems, which allowed them to survive on lower-grade feed.

The arrival of grasses during the Miocene (about 20 million years ago) saw a major change: grasses are very difficult to digest and the even-toed ungulates with their highly-developed stomachs were better able to adapt to this coarse, low-nutrition diet, and soon replaced the odd-toed ungulates as the dominant terrestrial herbivores.

The artiodactyls fall into two groups which, despite underlying similarities, are rather different. The suoids (pigs, hippos, and peccaries) retain four toes, have simpler molars, short legs, and their canine teeth are often enlarged to form tusks. In general, they are omnivores and have a simple stomach. (The two hippopotamus species are exceptions.)

The camelids and the Ruminantia, on the other hand, tend to be longer-legged, to have only two toes, to have more complex cheek teeth well-suited to grinding up tough grasses, and multi-chambered stomachs. Not only are their digestive systems highly developed, they have also evolved the habit of chewing cud: regurgitating part-digested food to chew it again and extract the maximum possible benefit from it.

Lastly a group of artiodactyls, which molecular biology suggests were most closely related to Hippopotamidae, returned to the sea to become whales.

ORDER ARTIODACTYLA
Suborder Suina
Family Suidae: pigs
Family Hippopotamidae: hippos
Family Tayassuidae: peccaries
Suborder Tylopoda
Family Camelidae: camels and llamas
Suborder Ruminantia
Family Tragulidae: chevrotains
Family Moschidae: musk deer
Family Cervidae: deer
Family Giraffidae: giraffe and okapi
Family Antilocapridae: pronghorn
Family Bovidae: cattle, goats, sheep, and antelope
All kosher mammals are Ruminantia. Tylopoda walk on pads on the toes (the name means "padfoot") and are therefore considered not to have true hooves; but they are halal. Pigs do not ruminate and are considered unclean by both Judaism and Islam.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Artiodactyla

Artiodactyla

Artiodactyla
http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/lookup/encyclopedia/ar/Artiodactyla.html
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Artiodactyla

Suborders and Families
Suiformes[?]
Hippopotamidae
Tayassuidae[?] (peccaries)
Suidae[?] (pigs)
Tylopoda[?]
Camelidae[?] (camels
and their relatives)
Ruminantia[?]
Tragulidae[?] (chevrotains[?])
Antilocapridae (pronghorn antelope[?])
Giraffidae[?] (giraffes and okapi)
Moschidae[?] (musk deer)
Cervidae[?] (deer)
Bovidae (cattle, goats, sheep, etc.)


Artiodactyls are ungulates whose weight is borne about equally by the third and fourth toes, rather than mostly or entirely by the third as in perissodactyls. There are 220 artiodactyl species.

All kosher mammals are Ruminantia. Tylopoda walk on pads on the toes (the name means "padfoot") and are therefore considered not to have true hooves; but they are halal. Pigs do not ruminate and are considered unclean by both Judaism and Islam.








References
Reference (http://users.tamuk.edu/kfjab02/Biology/Mammalogy/systematics/A7artiodactyla.htm)
as of 2002-07-10

Re: [conculture] Re: Unicorns Kosher? (was: Protecting the Pachyderms)


--- On Sat, 9/27/08, tomhchappell <tomhchappell@...> wrote:

> >R. Jehavadam said: "And yet there is a third
> kindred, their foot is
> >trebly cleft, and they are clean, for they carefully
> chew their
> cuds."
> >Clearly the rabbis are describing the basic kindreds of
> unicorn found
> >in the World.
> >Padraic
>
> In "the World" there's a ruminant
> perissodactyl (odd-toed ungulate)?

"Trebly cleft" = four toes. Whack your thumb off and you'll be "trebly cleft"
too!

I'm not so certain that a four toed cud chewer would actually be kosher *here*,
but clearly Jews *there* find them kosher if not entirely well known, as only
one of the rabbis knew about the four toed variety.

> *Here* all ruminants are artiodactyls (even-toed
> ungulates).
> "The odd-toed ungulates (animals having an odd number
> of toes on each
> hoof) are usually large, have relatively simple stomachs
> and a large
> middle toe. In contrast to the Ruminant Artiodactyl
> ungulates,
> perissodactyls are hindgut fermenters; that is, they digest
> plant
> cellulose in their intestines rather than stomach."
>
> Artiodactyls include Suina (incl. swine and peccaries),
> Tylopoda
> (incl. camels and llamas), and Ruminantia (incl.
> pronghorns, cattle,
> goats, sheep, antelope, deer, giraffes, okapi, musk deer,
> and
> chevrotains).
>
> The clade Cetartiodactyla (unranked clade, higher than
> Artiodactyla
> or Cetaceans) includes the family Hippopotamidae (hippos;
> unable to
> tell what order they belong to) and the orders Cetaceans
> (whales,
> dolphins and porpoises) and Artiodactyla.
>
> So it makes perfect sense for any even-toed unicorn to be
> related
> both to ruminants and to whales.
>
> Odd-toed (whether one or three) unicorns would be more
> closely
> related to horses, tapirs, and rhinoceroses (rhinoceroi?).
> These
> would be about as closely related to aardvarks, manatees,
> dugongs,
> and elephants, as to whales and ruminants.
>
> That's the way it is *here*. OTOH on the World
> there's an
> intelligent species of bat-winged flying double-hearted
> things.

Probably not. Bat wings are pretty much reserved for bats. There are many other
creatures and people that have wings, but none have bat wings to my knowledge.

> So biology is different there; how different, I don't
> know.

Nor do I. Jehan of the Mark did a fairly comprehensive review of biology a
couple centuries ago. Mostly it's so much flummery, but what has become known as
the Markan Principle (that external circumstances affect internal events) he did
get quite right. Serendipity, some would call it.

> I assume the PoD was sometime after the K-T event?

I'm sure the POD is where God used a different Music to sing the place into
being.

Padraic

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conculture/message/32247

 

[Skeptical]

Joseph

Like dhc, you seem to have a little difficulty grasping some of the fundamentals of science.

I would like to mention your idea that science is based on the concept of cause and effect, and that it is based on laws.

Neither is correct. Science is based on empirical testing. There is no prior assumption that everything must operate according to a cause and effect relationship. If you do not believe this, get hold of a text book on quantum physics and read up about quantum randomness. Cause and effect is a human invention. It is a very useful mental tool, and certainly seems to work in the macroscopic world. However, it is not a basic part of science.

Also, relating to laws. Scientific laws are a result of science, not its basis. Scientific work may lead to the formulation of laws. Again, though, these are human constructs that are used as tools. Very successful tools. But still human constructs. There is no scientific law that has been 'proven' to be correct in all situations. Just in the situations we have been able to test so far.

Science is about reality, whatever that might turn out to be. Scientists work to uncover the truth of the universe. There have been many surprises so far and doubtless, there will be many more. Scientists who are leaders in their fields do not go into this endeavour burdoned with prejudgements about cause and effect and scientifc laws. They investigate what is, and only after try to fit it into what is already known.

The concepts of cause and effect, and scientific laws have served us well so far, but not in every case. Sometimes what is discovered seems to contradict these things. Yet the empirical results are what count. Not the prejudgement.

Who would believe, for example, that a single photon can pass through two slits simultaneously? Yet it does. Scientific laws change in the realms of the very small. Sometimes they change in the realm of the very cold. There is some evidence that they may change in the realm of the very distant (meaning deep into the past).

The whole idea of a creator deity is still very much unproven. That is; it is just one hypothesis. Only empirically derived data can change this, and show whether that hypothesis has strength or becomes falsified.

 

[dhcracker]

Species-species transitions in artiodactyls:

Brunet & Heintz (1983) describe gradual shifts in size and shape in Plio-Pleistocene artiodactyls (cited in Gingerich, 1985)
Harris & White (1979) show smooth species-species transitions among pigs.
Krishtalka & Stucky (1985) documented smooth transitions in the common early Eocene artiodactyl genus Diacodexis. The fossil record for these animals is very good (literally hundreds of new specimens have been found in Colorado and Wyoming since the 1970's). Analysis of these specimens found gradual species-species transitions for every step of the following lineage, including the origination of three different familes: Diacodexis secans-primus is the first artiodactyl species known. Immediately a new group of animals split off that gave rise to the Wasatchia and Bunophorus genera (not further discussed by this particular paper). Meanwhile, the main lineage of D. s-primus continued, and became D. s-metsiacus. Two species split off from D. s-metsiacus: one was D. gracilis, the other was an as-yet-unnamed new species "Artiodactyla A", which gave rise to "Artiodactyla B"; these two were the first members of the new families Homacodontidae and Antiacodontidae. Meanwhile, D. s- metsiacus continued changing and became D. s-kelleyi. Another species forked off, D. minutus. Slightly later another species forked off, D. woltonensis, which apparently was the first member of the new family Leptochoeridae. Meanwhile, D. s-kelley continued changing and became D. s-secans. Some quotes from the paper: "A good fossil record, such as that of Diacodexis, flies major anagenetic change in the face of artificial [naming] conventions..." "Evolutionary change (both anagenesis and cladogenesis) among these artiodactyls appears to have been gradual, chronoclinal, and mosaic, involving an increase in the degree of expression and frequency of occurrence of derived morphologic features..." "...it appears that different taxa of artiodactyls -- in hindsight, the most primitive members of originating suborders, families, and subfamilies -- arose at different times from different lineage segments of the single species Diacodexis secans." The authors conclude: "Microevolutionary processes can account for both cladogenetic and anagenetic change among these artiodactyls; macroevolutionary processes are not called for."

source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html

Some animals do not evolve to be much different, this just means they are a stable and successful lifeform. It may be that barring some mass extinction event that we won't see any big changes in the future, rather we may see simply microevolution. That may simply be because the present or future lifeforms have reached maximum potential and no further change is needed. Alligators and Crocodiles haven't changed much, sharks haven't changed much, deer haven't really changed much, and we haven't really changed much... this is over the past couple million to several million years depending on species.

Anyway I believe Joseph is a literalist, I often wonder why people cannot simply say "grand design may include evolution" that seems apparent. I would like to encourage Joseph to really go ouside and dip up some fossils and look at them yourself, don't take our word for it.

Actually you can stick to a seven day creation and evolution both.. time is relative. You might be interested to know that a jewish physicist recently claimed that if you subtracted all the gravitational and velocity time dilation out of the universe it is equivelant to 8 days old or something like that. Thats pretty ify cause how does he know how fast everything is moving or how much mass in past the light cone, but its better than rejecting science.. religion will have to incorporate human advancment or die slowly I think.

 

[dhcracker]

To dhc and Joseph.

On multiverse ideas. You need not continue to push this as an example of science gone wrong, or a science 'leap of faith'. It is not.

Multiverse ideas represent scientific speculation. As I thought I made very clear, no good scientist actually 'believes' this idea. They may work with it, looking for a way to test it. But until a proper empirical test is done, the idea is just an idea, and not taken seriously by good science.

Joe, this idea has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Thus, it is wrong to call anything in cosmology a weakness in the theory of evolution. It is a bit like those who claim that the fact we do not know how life began as a weakness in evolutionary ideas. Knowledge gaps in cosmology and the beginning of life do not represent a weakness in the theory of evolution, any more than the inability to kick a soccer ball stops someone being a chess champion.

The idea that the universe was made by a creator deity is one hypothesis that can be stood up alongside all the other hypotheses for the origin of the universe. The evidence pretty much makes it almost certain that the beginning involved a Big Bang. Did a creator cause the Big Bang? We do not know. Until better evidence is gained, we have to accept that there are many possibilities.

For all we know, the Big Bang was the start up sequence for a computer simulation. Or collision of branes. Or something else. A creator is not necessary, but is a valid hypothesis, as long as you accept that hypothesis is all it is. If you try to assert that this hypothesis is somehow 'proven', you will not be taken seriously on this forum.

I believe we have finally come to an understanding. However though some people may be comfortable not knowing our origins, others will choose to believe and I think its ok to allow beliefs to exist without discouraging it. Unless said belief is harming anyone else without cause. For instance how do you know your wife loves you? You can't know despite evidence you must have a little trust and faith. And also just because someone may suspect adultery doesn't make it OK to kill the culprit though you may want to. Maybe a bad example but you get the point I hope.

I also think its important to not try to state that your belief is fact, its important to recognize that we must place faith in the unknown we cannot "know" that much really. For all we know all our cosmology could be wrong, a completely different more perfect cosmology may replace it someday however that doesn't mean we shouldn't use the scientific method.. if its replaced thats what will do it.

And I don't think that no good scientist doesn't have any beliefs about where we came from.. they may be polite and not force the issue unlike some others. But I think everyone has their own little theory that they lean on a little in the least. Again we cannot judge other peoples motivations.

 

[Skeptical]

dhc

I do not think scientists as a whole have ever broken your concept of evidence.

In good science, nothing is said to be proved. Instead, we talk of strong and weak models of a particular reality. The theory of evolution is a very, very strong model of reality. The superstring idea represents a particularly weak model. (It may become a strong model, if we can carry out empirical tests.)

Ideas on what caused the Big Bang are all very weak models. That includes the creator deity hypothesis. And again, one or more of those hypotheses may become stronger models if we can produce proper data supporting it or them, based on objective and empirical research.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Nominating a pig as habouring a unique trait among all other trillions of life forms - is one of the most astounding declarations in all written texts - which you have chosen to ignore.

You stated that the pig is the only cloven-hoofed mammal that does not chew its cud. I reminded you that the hippopotamus is another. The text you copied verifies that refutation of your argument. You continue to ignore peer-review challenges to your own assertions and blithely march on as though you've established their validity. This is an instance of intellectual dishonesty.

Earlier, in another thread, you asserted that the technology of spoken language is only six thousand years old. I provided evidence that falsifies your assertion: the newly discovered Dene-Yeniseian language family is at least 15,000 years old, since the Navajo and Yenisei tribes are separated by a 15,000-year migration. This is probably the most important discovery in linguistics in the last hundred years and it has been universally accepted--even by the Navajo, who had their own fairytale creation myth and regarded their tribe as unique. Noneteheless, you ignored this peer-review challenge to your assertion and repeated it as if it was not controversial, much less proven false. This is another instance of intellectual dishonesty.

The moderators may be on the verge of a consensus, that two incidences of intellectual dishonesty are grounds for immediate and permanent banning. Stay tuned, folks.

Anyway I believe Joseph is a literalist, I often wonder why people cannot simply say "grand design may include evolution" that seems apparent.

Considering that the Pope and the leaders of all of the other halfway-rational Abrahamist sects have said exactly that, it's amusing that a few religionists on the fringe of civilization are still hard-wired to a Stone Age interpretation of their Holy Books.

I would like to encourage Joseph to really go ouside and dip up some fossils and look at them yourself, don't take our word for it.

Very few of us on SciForums are genuine hands-on scientists, so even I have to regard that directive as a little too onerous. Fortunately one of the cornerstones of the scientific method is the peer review procedure, in which people who do not have to be anywhere near as brilliant and accomplished as the one who did the original research can check the research to make sure it is valid and does not contain (deliberately or innocently) hidden mistakes in methodology. Paleontology is a highly-respected science and has passed peer review for more than a century. The fossils have been reviewed by thousands of people who may not have the qualifications to go dig them up, but are certainly well-educated enough to review the original work.

In addition, we have the new discipline of DNA analysis. It has not yet achieved the stature of paleontology, but it is a completely unrelated source of evidence, and it consistently supports the fossil record with only a few tweaks here and there.

Actually you can stick to a seven day creation and evolution both.. time is relative. You might be interested to know that a jewish physicist recently claimed that if you subtracted all the gravitational and velocity time dilation out of the universe it is equivelant to 8 days old or something like that. Thats pretty ify cause how does he know how fast everything is moving or how much mass in past the light cone, but its better than rejecting science.. religion will have to incorporate human advancment or die slowly I think.

Once again, the Pope and his peers in the other religions have happily admitted that the biblical stories are metaphors. Their only opposition is the Religious Redneck Retard Revival movement: the people who built a creation "science" museum in Kentucky and briefly got creationism included in the textbooks in one of the Bible Belt states.

Joseph Campbell spoke about literalists; he called them "people who cannot grasp the concept of metaphor." To them, everything is either true or false, there's nothing in between. If you tell them, "the sun is a shining golden jewel that brings light and happiness into our lives," they respond, "that's not true, so it's a lie."

 

[Skeptical]

On lies.

There are two kinds of lies : honest lies and dishonest lies.

J.R.R.Tolien wrote a magnificent fantasy in The Lord of the Rings. It is, of course, a lie. But Tolkien never claimed it to be anything other than fiction, so it is an honest lie.

George Adamski wrote several books, in which he claimed to have made friends with extraterrestrials, and had gone on assorted rides in their flying saucers. That was a lie which he claimed to be true (supported by photos of spinning dustpan lids). So it was a dishonest lie.

Joseph has a sad quirk. He comes up with what seems to be a great idea. However, he sticks to it regardless of the evidence others present to show it to be incorrect. This rigidity is Joseph's greatest flaw.

I ask Joseph to demonstrate his willingness to show that he is honest. The way to do this is to admit that he is wrong on one or more points. For example : the statement that the pig is the only animal with cloven hoofs that does not chew its cud.

Joseph, that is really simple. Admit being wrong. It will only increase your mana on this forum. We are all wrong sometimes, and the admission shows our quality.

 

[dhcracker]

Joseph

Like dhc, you seem to have a little difficulty grasping some of the fundamentals of science.

I would like to mention your idea that science is based on the concept of cause and effect, and that it is based on laws.

Neither is correct. Science is based on empirical testing.

No I do not, and there is no comparison to my view and josephs lol. Anyway so we are clear science is not just the finished product, its the whole discovery process and actually my definition is more stringent than yours is. A hypothesis is based on empirical evidence so neither multiverse or intelligent design is a hypothesis. But I am also guilty of liberal use of hypothesis, more correct would be speculation as you say or research. Both are part of curiosity driven basic research, when basic research gets to a point we can turn it to applied research which is the search for solutions. This implies some kind of data being available to solve with.

HOWEVER ALL ARE SCIENCE, the basic research is most important and it most times has absolutely no data to back up the research being done. For example relativity started by a baseless curiosity and evolved to scientific theory and our standard model.

To sit there and to say something isn't science... thats silly EVERYTHING is science if it involves a quest for knowledge or search for answers. If I want to research intelligent design then so long as I am searching for evidence I am in fact performing science. However you cannot call a speculation a hypothesis, that goes against the scientific method.

Now the finalized scientific theory is in fact empirical, and its always open to change should new data call for it. There is no such thing as absolute certainty in science we have to keep an open mind.

wikis science article states:

Philosopher Barry Stroud adds that, although the best definition for "knowledge" is contested, being skeptical and entertaining the possibility that one is incorrect is compatible with being correct. Ironically then, the scientist adhering to proper scientific method will doubt themselves even once they possess the truth. The fallibilist C. S. Peirce argued that inquiry is the struggle to resolve actual doubt and that merely quarrelsome, verbal, or hyperbolic doubt is fruitless, but also that the inquirer should try to attain genuine doubt rather than resting uncritically on common sense. He held that the successful sciences trust, not to any single chain of inference (no stronger than its weakest link), but to the cable of multiple and various arguments intimately connected."

I don't see how you can think speculation isn't a part of science, and belief is not. Actually belief is always involved if you think you do not believe in anything, that all science is empirical or factual.. then you are not practicing science at all. Probabilities lead us to believe a certain outcome will happen, and in some theories like germ theory and evolution it can be pretty much considered to be factual. However a good scientist admits belief IS involved, as in if he makes a prediction using a theory there is always a random chance it may not happen.. however he still makes the prediction. Because he believes in the odds and the outcome. However everyone will realize almost anything that can happen can go wrong. Even empirically tested theories may not be the only correct or perfect correct answer.

Ask yourself would a scientist making a prediction with 90% probability be using any more or less belief in his prediction than an average joe who predicts something based on logic alone? Who can say? A good scientist also has doubt, Joe will also have doubt everyone does even if he never admits it or the scientists never admits it. Since both can have doubt in their beliefs

Your trying to tell me science is above belief.. it is not and any definition in any encyclopedia says so. And nobody knows what measure of belief any man has in his predictions, thats an unknown. To say scientific speculations of one way require less belief than some kind of logical reasoning and apply that to other people is wrong. You can only apply such statements to yourself, not to others you have no idea how much faith or lack of it anyone has.

Now that said I only know a few scientists, John Moffat, Joel Brownstien, Stirling Colgate, and Scott Hughes. And they are actually kind of open minded, some are even into sci fi. However this doesn't just apply to scientists, this applies to every single human being on this planet that either subscribes to an athiestic or theistic view of the cosmos on any level of knowledge at all. Everyone on earth is capable of science on some level so its not like I can't sit here and say I use science because I do, everyone does else they would be too scared to do anything for doubt. Either through experience or by research and testing we learn things.

I can see we are almost at agreement, and I have really enjoyed this discussion with you. I can say I think you are an objective person pretty much. I disagree in that I think there is a problem among the educated no-God crowd with giving equal footing to intelligent design as a valid scientific area of research. I see debate after debate of atheistic use of science to justify arrogant and dismissive behavior towards theists, an absolute denial that stating there is no God requires any belief or faith, and (again though you have been objective and real) debate over what reality is or what evidence or lack of it means, in effect both are irrelevant. Even when all evidence supports a theory, if we are going to use science we have to admit that there is always room for a little doubt. Thus literally every argument requires differing levels of belief on a person by person basis.

And I think that does include most scientists but that is just an opinion I never see open criticism in that manner actually subscribed to a scientist by name.... however I never see any real name tied to any argument I have to assume some of the people on this forum are in fact scientists.

 

[IamJoseph]

Science is based on empirical testing.

Disagree. The testing is only an affirmation of a pre-determined construct. You can only test if H2 + O = water, if both H & O have pre-determined attributes - it is testable as different from N + O = water.

There is no prior assumption that everything must operate according to a cause and effect relationship. If you do not believe this, get hold of a text book on quantum physics and read up about quantum randomness. Cause and effect is a human invention. It is a very useful mental tool, and certainly seems to work in the macroscopic world. However, it is not a basic part of science.

I have studied Quantum - it is not based on a random but follows a predictable set of probabilities. This is indeed cause and effect; this is only possible by specific attributes in the sub-atomic particles to behave as they do.

Also, relating to laws. Scientific laws are a result of science, not its basis. Scientific work may lead to the formulation of laws. Again, though, these are human constructs that are used as tools. Very successful tools. But still human constructs. There is no scientific law that has been 'proven' to be correct in all situations. Just in the situations we have been able to test so far.

Disagree. There is no science where there are no laws. Science vindicates pre-determined laws. The BANG in the BBT must be a result of laws which allow the bang to happen, as opposed a situation where there is no bang. Consider the point before the BB: no bang! Why?

Science is about reality, whatever that might turn out to be. Scientists work to uncover the truth of the universe.

Agreed. But whatever do you call uncover - 'uncover what'? - if not a pre-directed set of laws embedded within the traits of all things? Can one uncover gravity before the universe existed? This says that the universe can only concievably occur as all things do, as in a home: first the blueprint [the laws], then the materials subscribed in that blueprint, then the house. You are saying the house proves no blueprint exists.

The concepts of cause and effect, and scientific laws have served us well so far, but not in every case. Sometimes what is discovered seems to contradict these things. Yet the empirical results are what count. Not the prejudgement.

All things are conquerable accept a pre-universe cause. This is what history and science says.

Who would believe, for example, that a single photon can pass through two slits simultaneously? Yet it does. Scientific laws change in the realms of the very small. Sometimes they change in the realm of the very cold. There is some evidence that they may change in the realm of the very distant (meaning deep into the past).

We will in future be able to factor in counter impacts of small and very cold, without affecting cause and effect. I don't see the anomaly of freezing water being stemmed, as a random: it appears more reasonable this was factored in the program to allow fish to live because only the crust of a lake freezes. The same applies to the critical separation factors which anticipated all life on this particular planet - which did not occur on Mars. Rocket science.

The whole idea of a creator deity is still very much unproven. That is; it is just one hypothesis. Only empirically derived data can change this, and show whether that hypothesis has strength or becomes falsified.

It is not subject to proof or disproof but subject to a sound premise. Science totally depends on this premise, but it is not a negative effect and it has no impact in negating science - the reverse applies; science is an after the fact faculty, as opposed a random one, and subscribes only to a programmer. There was no science before the universe emerged.

I invite you to counter the premise that at one time, all componenets of the universe was a mush, bereft of laws, science and any independent parts.
Then, subsequent to laws parts became seperated and distinguishable - this is evidenced by the BBT and the expanding universe which propels new paradigms. Once, stars, pineapples, quarks and iodine atoms were all one entity, as in a void, and each became independent by directed critical laws, then with critical attributes per all entities subsequent to those laws [how else!?], then with separations subsequent to those attributes. Science emerged after, subsequent, consequent and resultant from specific laws with specific directive criteria: if science always existed then we do need science - gravity always existed whether science is applicable or not! Thus I ask, the universe being finite, did science exist pre-universe, and on which scientific premise was it ushered in without directed laws?

 

[IamJoseph]

For example : the statement that the pig is the only animal with cloven hoofs that does not chew its cud.

Joseph, that is really simple. Admit being wrong. It will only increase your mana on this forum. We are all wrong sometimes, and the admission shows our quality.

I have not checked the pig's biology, or all the trillions of other life forms actually: have you? Nor did I check the BB - actually. But calling me dishonest is a stretch. What you mean is 100's of 1000's of reasonable humans and links, over many 1000's of years - are dishonest. My links included scientists, biologists, scholars and encyclopedia: what have I left out that you charge me with dishonesty?

I see your omission from engaging the widespread human community, as well as the Jews [who happen to be among the most knowledgable and vindicated on the planet, and who are engaging the scientific community honestly and forthrightly] - and dishonestly dumping all on me personally - without credibility. How wrong is the premise you reject - it appears at least substantially correct and an astonishing mode of biology - considering its origins period: the term biology and science was yet not concieved!

There is similar declarations of the traits of fish, hidden in the oceans; also of insects and their minute skeletal traits; of those which are scavangers and those which are not: are all of these also guessmatics?

 

[IamJoseph]

You stated that the pig is the only cloven-hoofed mammal that does not chew its cud.

Correction. I posted a host of links which agree with that. And those links cater to your singular example of the Hippo. I am substantially correct - you are substantially incorrect.

 

[dhcracker]

Considering that the Pope and the leaders of all of the other halfway-rational Abrahamist sects have said exactly that, it's amusing that a few religionists on the fringe of civilization are still hard-wired to a Stone Age interpretation of their Holy Books.

Very few of us on SciForums are genuine hands-on scientists, so even I have to regard that directive as a little too onerous. Fortunately one of the cornerstones of the scientific method is the peer review procedure, in which people who do not have to be anywhere near as brilliant and accomplished as the one who did the original research can check the research to make sure it is valid and does not contain (deliberately or innocently) hidden mistakes in methodology. Paleontology is a highly-respected science and has passed peer review for more than a century. The fossils have been reviewed by thousands of people who may not have the qualifications to go dig them up, but are certainly well-educated enough to review the original work.

In addition, we have the new discipline of DNA analysis. It has not yet achieved the stature of paleontology, but it is a completely unrelated source of evidence, and it consistently supports the fossil record with only a few tweaks here and there.Once again, the Pope and his peers in the other religions have happily admitted that the biblical stories are metaphors. Their only opposition is the Religious Redneck Retard Revival movement: the people who built a creation "science" museum in Kentucky and briefly got creationism included in the textbooks in one of the Bible Belt states.

Joseph Campbell spoke about literalists; he called them "people who cannot grasp the concept of metaphor." To them, everything is either true or false, there's nothing in between. If you tell them, "the sun is a shining golden jewel that brings light and happiness into our lives," they respond, "that's not true, so it's a lie."

Fraggle:

I am mostly in total agreement with you. I am probably expecting too much as far as testing things yourself, however I am not a scientist I am a mechanical and electrical engineer.. albeit with maybe with too much free time and a curiosity most don't have. I dig fossils all the time, I search for consistency with the records and also for as of yet non-discovered fossils that should exist. (big money) Like the giant spider and dragonfly, it should exist in this strata yet has never been discoverd in this area yet. I actually just sent off a fossil that closely resembled its leg and am waiting either confirmation or a big letdown on if its a leg or just sticks. So I know from not only what I read, but what I have seen that 300 million years ago there was a swamp here, lots of plants and not many animals at all.

Do you know why I do such things? Because sometimes I don't want to have to accept another persons word for it.

I know joseph can be taxing, but it appears he is mostly not hostile. His ideas maybe wrong however it may be important for people to see the contrast between groups. I want to ask you to consider this aspect to intellectual dishonesty. Joseph is doubting the evidence provided because he is not a linguist, he is probably now searching for a creationalist linguist to interpret the evidence you listed. And though that may seem to you to be rejecting peer review, I want to ask you if you really think you are a "peer" to Joseph? If you were a peer then your evidence would seriously shake that belief of 6,000 year old language.

We cannot ever all become peers to one another unless we are persistent, polite, and tolerant.

I think he actually believes what he is saying and is not being dishonest, his only dishonesty is sometimes in argument he will duck the question while acting like he is answering it. And I have seen when overwhelming evidence is applied he will stop debating, he may never graciously admit defeat but I think the silence speaks for itself.

I want to state I have debated this guy here and in another forum quiet vigorously, I have tried to show him the inconsistencies in the bible so that his literalism might change to something that won't shatter his faith and yet may enlighten his mind. And I believe I may have made a little progress through persistence. I think if we tolerate all the Josephs out there and suffer through what we may see as just absolute rejection of any logic and realize that if he is reading this. It is having an effect, so long as we communicate and tolerate each other on some polite level we can in fact change the world to a better place. I do not think you should worry about incorrect notions infecting innocent people here so long as we answer each misunderstanding. If people actually do "dig the fossils" or do the research, and they might if they start questioning their faith and being introverted about what they believe. If they do that then there is no question to the outcome.

I actually think more creationalists will stumble onto these forums and discover maybe science is a good thing, maybe they can keep their faith and still support scientific research... catch my drift I find that very probable even if its only a few people its worthwhile.

 

[dhcracker]

"the pig is the only animal with cloven hoofs that does not chew its cud"

Why is this an issue? Is there a currently living animal that is the same? Was there another animal relevant to the Israelites when that book was written? There is no conflict from a pigs digestion system with evolution even if others are different. There is no conflict from a scientific standpoint that when that book was written that may have been an accurate statement by the writer of the book. Even if there are other animals had the Israelites had no access to those animals why would God have mentioned it to Moses it would just confuse him, I could see it now "btw in another 1,000 year when trade lanes open then you can't eat these animals".

I see that debate as irrelevant Joseph, there is no way to disprove evolution. And I hate to try to tell you this but besides time dilation there is no way to explain a 7 day creation with testable data. I don't see how you can ignore that, the bible even says things like "time is nothing to god" or 1,000 years is as a day.. may as well say 1 billion.

See you just said "personally I haven't tested..." well why don't you apply that to the book you are holding up as literally true, you were not there when it was written. You cannot be certain that it hasn't been changed around or even written partly as fiction.

 

[IamJoseph]

"the pig is the only animal with cloven hoofs that does not chew its cud"

Why is this an issue? Is there a currently living animal that is the same? Was there another animal relevant to the Israelites when that book was written? There is no conflict from a pigs digestion system with evolution even if others are different. There is no conflict from a scientific standpoint that when that book was written that may have been an accurate statement by the writer of the book. Even if there are other animals had the Israelites had no access to those animals why would God have mentioned it to Moses it would just confuse him, I could see it now "btw in another 1,000 year when trade lanes open then you can't eat these animals".

You are missing the point. While it would be inappropriate to say all animals are different from the pig in one factor, these amazing biological descriptions are not limited to the pig, but spread over a host of similar predictions. It is most plausable the arguements against it are faulty and derived by a lack of correct comprehension. The point is the pig factor is substantially correct - not addressed in its rejection. I also think this writings display the first attempt at biology in recorded history, seen in even a thought premise which involves the traits and attributes of an animal's hidden organs. Nowhere is this better evidenced than the law not to mix a kid in its mother's milk: while humans cannot identify which animal that milk came from in a village commune - the mother of that animal can!

I see that debate as irrelevant Joseph, there is no way to disprove evolution.

I have never disputed evolution. However, I totally dispute its conclusions, and that this is anything other than an after the fact process. Evolution is the wiring process in a program's chip. Nothing more and nothing else. Evolution is one of the greatest ways of proving Creationism - it even comes from Genesis, which records the first listing of groups and sub-groups within life forms; speciation via the host seed; cross-speciation conditional to terrain.

And I hate to try to tell you this but besides time dilation there is no way to explain a 7 day creation with testable data. I don't see how you can ignore that, the bible even says things like "time is nothing to god" or 1,000 years is as a day.. may as well say 1 billion.

Time, as with space, is a post-universe factor, and cannot exist outside the universe - as can anything else now contained in this universe: this makes the statement nothing to God as plausable; its not saying time is nothing for Babylon or some galaxy! As above stated, your error is correct comprehension and contemplation of the texts. You are quoting a walt disney version of Genesis, which is seen throughout Christianity: the US Creation Museum is an embarrassment. Genesis is among the hediest documents humanity possesses and deals with the headiest issues for the first time, in a scientific mode before the word science was coined. Your errors:

Genesis preamble: the uni is finite. [Hereafter, everything must align with this, as in a legal treatise].

1. The Hebrew calendar, I believe the oldest [5770], does not include the creation days and begins ammediately after. Why so?

2. Prior to the creation days, a host of actions are listed, such as seperation of water from land; this blatantly accounts for millions of years. Where did you factor this in your equation?

3. The creation days are clearly listed as pre-lunimosity [V14], thus not 24 hour days.

4. We have no speech endowed human history per se older than 5770, at least this is disputable and not manifest: no NAMES, NATIONS, WARS, MONUMENTS, etc. Did this have no impact for you - is it a trillion to one fluke?

5. Both the DAY & WEEK were introduced in Genesis.

6. Clearly, it would be inappropriate to list light years to a people 3,500 years ago or even 600 years ago: this error is not seen in Genesis.

See you just said "personally I haven't tested..." well why don't you apply that to the book you are holding up as literally true, you were not there when it was written. You cannot be certain that it hasn't been changed around or even written partly as fiction.

I cannot be certain there were no changes - how can I, if we have no proof of a contemporary relic? However, other factors do compell - the logic and back up by science and archeology. I know of no writings which better or more proves itself than does the Hebrew bible via history and science; over 70% has been archeologically proven, as opposed to zero of the NT and all European ancient writings, when writings were common place. So never mind what is changed - instead point out its errors, and first accept your reading of Genesis is, at least, based on poor comprehension of an advanced writings - the first alphabetical books.

 

[AlexG]

We can only hope the moderators are reading this.