Educate your YEC 2: evolution is GRADUAL

Originally posted by DeepThought
It's not a "wave of the hand" you need the universe to be 6 orders of magnitude younger than it appears to be - or light from distant stars to have been created in-flight. The methods they use to date zircon are robust. I don't see how an incompatibilist theory of creationism can be sustained. Every creationist argument I've ever heard just att ...[text shortened]... advice" so we are expected to recognise it as not being literally true, so why not with Genesis?

I'll leave the age of the universe for others to argue, because I'm not as familiar with that as I am other topics. I think that our perception of the passage of time can be explained in terms of relativity, but there's no way for me to prove or adequately explain this.

In this post I wanted to point out what I believe is the difference between Science and Natural Science. I understand that most people believe there is no difference, because they define science as the search for explanations of natural phenomenon. But the presumption (as I see it) is that those explanations should be (and must be) confined to measurable results with examples of clearly defined empirical evidence to back it up. This is Natural Science, but it's not necessarily Science in the sense that any possible explanation can be considered even if it transcends a naturalistic cause. And this is especially true if no real empirical evidence exists and results appear to defy measurement.

I can understand the need to limit science to naturalism because of its link to creating the products we use, but this doesn't mean I will preclude a cause that transcends natural causes simply because it can't be used. And I certainly cannot preclude such explanations if naturalism fails to explain (or comes close to explaining) something we may be aware of, but at the same time appears to violate physical laws or logical causation.

I know this is a lot to chew on, but the short explanation is that I see Science as something that is guided by the evidence, and will go where the evidence points no matter where that evidence leads. Natural Science on the other hand is necessarily limited to only considering naturalistic (measurable) explanations.

And yes, I can understand how this may sound like nonsense (been there, done that) to someone who truly believes nothing exists outside of this physical reality... but I can't say for certain that a thing can only exist if we are able to observe and measure it, because this idea necessarily precludes anything that may very well be real, but cannot be measured.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'll leave the age of the universe for others to argue, because I'm not as familiar with that as I am other topics. I think that our perception of the passage of time can be explained in terms of relativity, but there's no way for me to prove or adequately explain this.

In this post I wanted to point out what I believe is the difference between ...[text shortened]... use this idea necessarily precludes anything that may very well be real, but cannot be measured.

Why do you want to redefine a word (science) which has a
commonly understood meaning to something else? Why
not just create a new word for this new concept?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'll leave the age of the universe for others to argue, because I'm not as familiar with that as I am other topics. I think that our perception of the passage of time can be explained in terms of relativity, but there's no way for me to prove or adequately explain this.

In this post I wanted to point out what I believe is the difference between ...[text shortened]... use this idea necessarily precludes anything that may very well be real, but cannot be measured.

Our perception of time depends on rates of chemical reactions and signal path length in our brains. Our brains compensate for the various lags in information processing and acquisition to give us the impression that we see things as they happen - in the same way as our visual cortex fills in the blind spots where the retina joins the visual nerve. Adrenaline speeds up our perception of time, but our nervous system can't really cope at that rate which is why it's emergency only. Small creatures like mice can move an react more quickly because the signal has less far to go. Presumably, and I've no idea what the evidence is - not my field - mice perceive time as moving more slowly than we do, a second is a long time for them.

I think the distinction you are making is between (Natural) Science and Metaphysics. From the Greek meta = beyond and physis = nature. What you are describing to me sounds like metaphysics. Physics has been encroaching on it's territory since Newton's time, and not contradicting physics results is probably a requirement these days. Physics takes it's authority for making the statements it does from observation and experiment. Meta-physics claims to be able to make deduction based on "pure thought", which tends to make people like me think it's bunk. But if we posit a disconnected parallel universe then I see no reason that the laws of physics that apply here should apply in that one. We don't have empirical access to parallel universes and so physics has no authority to say anything about them. So if you are talking about realms beyond this one then you can speculate all you like. My objection to non-compatibilist creationism is its contradiction by empirical evidence.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Our perception of time depends on rates of chemical reactions and signal path length in our brains. Our brains compensate for the various lags in information processing and acquisition to give us the impression that we see things as they happen - in the same way as our visual cortex fills in the blind spots where the retina joins the visual nerve. Adre ...[text shortened]... like. My objection to non-compatibilist creationism is its contradiction by empirical evidence.

It seems to me that for our brains to work as you describe that it would require being connected by a great designer, engineer, and information technologist. Just saying.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It seems to me that for our brains to work as you describe that it would require being connected by a great designer, engineer, and information technologist. Just saying.

Don't do that. Don't rely on your common sense alone. Here are a few conclusions drawn from common sense historically:

- things fall to the ground because they long to be in their right element
- something heavy will fall faster than something not so heavy
- an object will continuously pick up speed as it falls
- bad things happen because deities are displeased
- the earth is flat
- the earth is at the center of creation
- planets, stars and the sun revolve around earth
- earth is not a planet
- the sun is not a star
- the moon is its own light
- disease can be cured by excorcism
- living things must have popped into existence fully formed
- capitalism is a good idea to build socities on

Given your a priori beliefs, your common sense can make pure comedy out of you.

Originally posted by C Hess
Don't do that. Don't rely on your common sense alone. Here are a few conclusions drawn from common sense historically:

- things fall to the ground because they long to be in their right element
- something heavy will fall faster than something not so heavy
- an object will continuously pick up speed as it falls
- bad things happen because deities are di ...[text shortened]... d socities on

Given your a priori beliefs, your common sense can make pure comedy out of you.

You can add:

- the earth is billions of years old
- life is an accident of evolution
- goo to you by the way of the zoo

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
You can add:

- the earth is billions of years old
- life is an accident of evolution
- goo to you by the way of the zoo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGrU9DYa2I

Laugh while you can, little man, science will show your creationist cretins how it REALLY happened, might take another century but science WILL win this pathetic battle.

Originally posted by C Hess
Don't do that. Don't rely on your common sense alone. Here are a few conclusions drawn from common sense historically:

- things fall to the ground because they long to be in their right element
- something heavy will fall faster than something not so heavy
- an object will continuously pick up speed as it falls
- bad things happen because deities are di ...[text shortened]... d socities on

Given your a priori beliefs, your common sense can make pure comedy out of you.

- an object will continuously pick up speed as it falls

What's wrong with this statement?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Our perception of time depends on rates of chemical reactions and signal path length in our brains. Our brains compensate for the various lags in information processing and acquisition to give us the impression that we see things as they happen - in the same way as our visual cortex fills in the blind spots where the retina joins the visual nerve. Adre ...[text shortened]... like. My objection to non-compatibilist creationism is its contradiction by empirical evidence.

I think the distinction you are making is between (Natural) Science and Metaphysics.

No, I was making a distinction between (Natural) Science and Science. The definition of science includes all of natural science. The distinction here is that by simply saying "Science", we do not automatically exclude evidence not pointing to natural causation. Natural Science (by definition) excludes any explanation that deviates from or cannot be explained by natural causation.

So instead of seeing DNA (for example) as containing information that does not lend itself to explanation strictly in terms of natural causation, Natural Science nevertheless must try to find an explanation that will fit within its parameters.

What I mean by "science" is science in it's most basic and undiluted form... it will not automatically exclude evidence or explanations based on (a qualifying) naturalistic criteria. It will follow the evidence no matter where that evidence points. It does not seek to advance personal beliefs one way or the other. This is how I first understood what science is (or was supposed to be) when I was a child. As it turns out this isn't what science is at all, and that was my 'Santa Claus' revelation. I've never believed in Santa Claus, but I did believe in the Science Fairy.

Originally posted by DeepThought
- an object will continuously pick up speed as it falls

What's wrong with this statement?

In our atmosphere falling objects eventually reach terminal velocity.

Originally posted by DeepThought
- an object will continuously pick up speed as it falls

What's wrong with this statement?

terminal velocity ... or if we are talking about falling into a black hole ......

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]I think the distinction you are making is between (Natural) Science and Metaphysics.

No, I was making a distinction between (Natural) Science and Science. The definition of science includes all of natural science. The distinction here is that by simply saying "Science", we do not automatically exclude evidence not pointing to natural causation. Natu ...[text shortened]... a Claus' revelation. I've never believed in Santa Claus, but I did believe in the Science Fairy.

You do realise that no natural evidence can "point" exclusively to a supernatural cause, right? For every phenomenon for which there exists measurable, observable natural evidence, there will always be a possible natural explanation, since the evidence itself formed in the natural world, and a supernatural explanation can only persist as long as there are gaps in our understanding of said phenomenon.

Natural evidence (the kind we can perceive) will only ever point to natural causes, whether or not in reality they have a supernatural cause. For instance, saying that the odds of DNA "information" forming through gradual natural processes are so unlikely as to render that possibility practically non-existant, is to demonstrate only that you can't comprehend how DNA "information" can form naturally, not that there must be a supernatural cause (or even an intelligent natural cause). Your lack of comprehension can never seriously be considered evidence for a positive, scientifically. It can only be used as such religiously.

There is only one science. It's natural, observable science. We don't always understand what we observe, but if we observe it, it's part of the natural world, hence part of natural science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You can add:

- the earth is billions of years old
- life is an accident of evolution
- goo to you by the way of the zoo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGrU9DYa2I

I take it you really mean:

- the earth is only 6000 years old
- life popped into existence fully formed
- RJHinds understand evolution reasonably well

Originally posted by RJHinds
You can add:

- the earth is billions of years old
- life is an accident of evolution
- goo to you by the way of the zoo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGrU9DYa2I

you don't even have a clear view of what you are against. you just are, out of inertia and like someone said, a love for self - lobotomize


life is not an accident of evolution(because, again, evolution doesn't deal with how life originated), not even species are an accident. random mutations occur but the way natural selection works is anything but an accident. only the fittest for the current environment survive.

Originally posted by C Hess
You do realise that no natural evidence can "point" exclusively to a supernatural cause, right? For every phenomenon for which there exists measurable, observable natural evidence, there will always be a possible natural explanation, since the evidence itself formed in the natural world, and a supernatural explanation can only persist as long as there are gap ...[text shortened]... we observe, but if we observe it, it's part of the natural world, hence part of natural science.

You do realise that no natural evidence can "point" exclusively to a supernatural cause, right?

I believe I was clear about that. I wasn't suggesting natural evidence can point "exclusively" to a supernatural cause. I was saying natural evidence doesn't always point to natural causation.

Here's an example of what I mean. There was an experiment that appeared to prove a signal could arrive before it was sent. The results were quickly published and then a flaw in the equipment was discovered... I think there was a delay in the recorded time of sending, or something like that. I learned about this experiment (before the flaw was discovered) and I couldn't help wondering how this idea of receiving before sending could work.

I envisioned a sender with his finger poised over the send button, and receiving equipment on another planet (or moon) far enough away that it would take light a few minutes to get there... we can easily envision this experiment happening in our own solar system. I also envisioned an outside observer who could verify if the signal did indeed arrive before it was sent, in order to avoid possible (relativity) complications that might skew the results in some way. And I added an extra element to this, by instructing the sender to only decide whether he will push the button or not immediately before the appointed time of sending. In this way it won't be known to the sender if the signal is sent or not until the moment it's sent (or not). I put that last condition in as a control, to see if the signal can arrive (or not) before the decision is made to send it (or not).

(By the way, you do realize what I'm describing here is a thought experiment, right?)

So if the signal does indeed arrive (or not arrive) before that decision is made, and the experiment is repeated several times, and the signal always arrives when sent (and does not arrive when not sent) then this suggests the universe is somehow able to know what that decision will be before it is made.

So how would natural science deal with this, if the results show this to be true and bear this out? Trying to explain this in terms of relative differences in time between two points would only show that faster than light speed was not actually achieved (even if it appeared to be so). But how could you interpret the mechanical receiver anticipating the decision to send? In other words, how could you expect the (natural) universe to know in advance about a decision before a decision is made?

This is the sort of questioning that seems to be missing from modern day science.