[General Battuta]

Conclusion: I don't think any of these ideas are correct, though they give decent perspectives, theories, of what actually happened. It's like two somewhat unreliable narrators to the same story. The most important thing is not to let such discussions divide you or make you think the opposite site are [fill in derogatory terms]. This subject is in dire need of more information and a lot less two-camps-claiming-total-knowledge.

No, it's nothing like that, at all. This is completely wrong.

Can the predictions of evolutionary theory be tested? Is it falsifiable? Can it be improved and refined through experimentation and study?

Can the belief that God be created everything be tested? Is it falsifiable? Can it be improved and refined through experimentation and study?

That is the difference. It's enormous.

[Bobboau]

any scientific theory can be used for good or ill, genetic engineering can feed the world or make an unstoppable zombie virus. how a theory is used has no effect on it's validity other than to prove it right, nuclear weapons are horrible, but they absolutely prove quantum mechanics. we also get nuclear power, which gives us a huge amount of energy with only a very small amount of (extremely concentrated) waist.

How knowledge is used does not effect it's validity. the Crusades made the Bible no more right or wrong in terms of fact. You could say it made the people hypocrites, but even from a 'moral truth' stand point the Bible it's self didn't change as a result of the Crusades, it was the same book it was before. The bombing of Hiroshima made quantum mechanics no less valid. the millions of people who have been killed by guns using gun powder to form high pressure behind a metal projectile does not mean that the ideal gas law is wrong. In fact all the bad things prove the science right, cause they couldn't have happened it they were wrong. just because surgeons didn't clean their equipment in the 1800s before Germ Theory was accepted and when they all thought it was from 'bad air' or an imbalance of the four humors (blood, phlegm, yellow and black bile), didn't mean the Humorism theory was right, people still died from infections even though all the doctors were acting on Humorism.

[Snail]

One time someone said to me that the center of the Milky Way looked like a cross and therefore god exists. Using that kind of BS reasoning I asked if the Sombraro galaxy was made by Mexicans. True story.

Best post so far.

[Kosh]

The main problem with that is that we all, sadly, don't have the needed information to make conclusions on whether Evolution(ism) or Creation(ism) is the correct explanation.

Is this a joke?   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx


Go ahead, explain how this is not evidence that evolution had occured.

[Snail]

If you read the Bible it says fish and birds came before man that proves NOTHING

[Bobboau]

well the two creation stories contradict each other on, if nothing else, the order of animal-human creation, so...

[JCDNWarrior]

I agree with most that you're saying, The_E. I'm not debating the validity of the theory/theories when I mention how a correct theory can be abused to force other people to do things  using that scientific/religious/moral high-ground. That's why I advice to try to look at things more level-headed, before people that agree with valid theories or conclusions, defend a implementation and execution of a idea that's flawed/wrong/immoral.

Basically, don't let incorrect spin-offs of correct theories/conclusions influence your judgment in a biased manner - I suppose that's what I mean to say with the example of Eugenics.

[General Battuta]

How does the existence of eugenics speak to the scientific validity of evolution? Like Bobbau said, do the millions of people killed by guns somehow render Newton's laws of motions or the ideal gas law wrong?

[Bobboau]

Basically, don't let incorrect spin-offs of correct theories/conclusions influence your judgment in a biased manner - I suppose that's what I mean to say with the example of Eugenics.

ok, well, as far as I could tell this whole intercultural argument the human race has been colectivly having for the last hundred and fifty years or so has been focusing on the 'truthines' of evolution...

not on utilization thereof.

[JCDNWarrior]

What I mean by it is, is that while the primary, main theory may be correct, a follow up, a spinoff, needs to be scrutinized perhaps double fold, to make sure it doesn't abuse the ideas brought from the primary to convince people to do things causing them to lose abilities, rights, or loss of material or life. So, instead of only discussing whether Creation or Evolution is right, it's also a good idea to look further, deeper into the situation, to find the pro's and con's of either theory, and to make sure that such theories cannot or will not be abused.

A person can have all the knowledge of the world, but it can be used against the entire world if intentions are less than good, instead of helping the human race develop further.

[General Battuta]

You haven't answered the question. You're still acting as if the moral consequences of a theory somehow speak to its scientific validity. That's patently false.

I ask again: how does the use of guns to kill millions of people render Newton's laws of motions wrong? Should we put extra scrutiny on Newton's laws of motion because they allow us to kill people with guns?

[The E]

What I mean by it is, is that while the primary, main theory may be correct, a follow up, a spinoff, needs to be scrutinized perhaps double fold, to make sure it doesn't abuse the ideas brought from the primary to convince people to do things causing them to lose abilities, rights, or loss of material or life. So, instead of only discussing whether Creation or Evolution is right, it's also a good idea to look further, deeper into the situation, to find the pro's and con's of either theory, and to make sure that such theories cannot or will not be abused.

A person can have all the knowledge of the world, but it can be used against the entire world if intentions are less than good, instead of helping the human race develop further.

Uhhh


Do you understand how Science works?

There is only one thing scientific theories and hypotheses have to do, which is to make testable predictions. If a theory can be used to make accurate predictions, then it is a valid theory. If it can't, then it has to be replaced with a better theory. All theories have to pass that test, whether they are original research or derivative work.

What a theory can be used for, or what the motivations of the researchers are, have no bearing on this process.

[Black Wolf]

Anyone want to do some quick math?   Measure the amount of decay in the rotation speed of the Earth.  Now measure the amount of decay in the magnetic field of the Earth.  Now calculate back 1,000,000 years.

More?

Ok, measure the rate of supernovae...  now count the supernovae remnants.. calculate backward.

Measure the amount of sediment at the mouth of the major rivers on the Earth.  Calculate back.

Measure the rate at which topographical features such as mountains erode.  Calculate back.

The age of the Earth isn't a certain thing.

This makes the geologist part of me a little bit sad. Some of these things, like the river sediment stuff, were Victorian ideas about aging the earth, The geological sciences have advanced so far in the last 150 years since ideas like these were in vogue, but still we seem to struggle to get the science to the people. So I'll try to help you understand a bit of modern geology.

OK, let's see.

Anyone want to do some quick math?   Measure the amount of decay in the rotation speed of the Earth.  Now measure the amount of decay in the magnetic field of the Earth.  Now calculate back 1,000,000 years.

How do you measure the decay in the roation speed of the earth over any appreciable time without going back to the geological record? Yes, we can check day/night vs seasonal cycles in some very well preserved corals and lacustrine sediments (I think -  I remember being told about this in class, but can't find a reference for it), but they agree with a slowing pattern in line with a 4.6 billion year old earth. The conventional measure, though, are what're called "rythymites" - although nobody actually calls them that AFAIK - it's an after the fact designation. These are very well preserved tidal sediments that record daily cycles - you can read about them in ths paper.

As for the magnetic field, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. The field isn't constant, nor has it been decaying at anything like a constant rate. In fact, some of the strongest evidence for plate tectonics comes from mapping variations in the magnetic field at mid-ocean ridges, which shows the timeline of swaps.

Ok, measure the rate of supernovae...  now count the supernovae remnants.. calculate backward.

Can't speak to this one, it's outside my field. Maybe Herra or someone can?

Measure the amount of sediment at the mouth of the major rivers on the Earth.  Calculate back.

That would be extraordinarily difficult... plus all it would tell you is the age of the river, not anything about the age of the earth. Some of the really epic deltas on the planet like the Ganges have taken millions of years to form, but we know that the rivers that feed it are only as old as the mountais which feed them, so no older than 50 odd million years (at best, the truly epic scale of the Himalayas (and associated scale of snow melt) is much more recent, so the speed of deposition is changing).

As for the rivers themselves, rivers are constantly being born and dying. I've just finished a drill program in the Albany-Fraser Orogen during which we uncovered some properly big ancient rivers - at least a kilometer wide in some places, with 30 or 40 metres of sediment, including some very high energy quartz which suggested masses of water flow - almost certainly some kind of enormous flood event. But now, there's absolutely zero surface evidence that there was ever a river there at all -  you have to dig through minimum 5m of surficial clay and quaternary sands before you ever hit fluvial sediments, often further. So even if you measured every active river on the planet, you'd still only be scratching the surface (literally) in trying to age the earth that way, and that doesn't even consider the fact that 99% of all crustal material has been either recycled through subduction, or metamorphosed beyond sedimentary recognition. There's just no way to measure the age of the earth that way.

Measure the rate at which topographical features such as mountains erode.  Calculate back.

This method runs into the same problem as the river emthod - mountains, while they last a lot longer than rivers - themselves are born and die over geological time. Most of the mountains that have existed over the course of the earth's history eroded into the sea millions of years ago, or were subducted into the mantle, so aging the earth that way is impossile, and again, all it would tell you would be the age of the mountain range.

However, aging the individual mountain ranges through erosion does help to confirm radioactive dating, work which has been done. As a very, very rough guide, the height of a mountain range corresponds with its age, but there are many factors which affect the speed of erosion (climate (both modern and palaeo), the type of rock the mountains are made of, the nature of their formation, local topography etc. etc.).

[Kosh]

Because I just can't help myself......




Carry on.

[General Battuta]

Science does not look for things that are good or useful. It looks for things that are true.

How people use that knowledge is a separate matter.

[Bobboau]

So, instead of only discussing whether Creation or Evolution is right, it's also a good idea to look further, deeper into the situation, to find the pro's and con's of either theory, and to make sure that such theories cannot or will not be abused.

No, Theories describing the way the world work are devoid of moral implications, they simply describe what is, what we have no control over. the only thing to talk about with a Theory is it's factual accuracy.
now a separate discussion describing how to safeguard against abusing the knowledge provided is fine, and provably a good idea, but it can only proceed when the factual accuracy of the theory has been established.

I mean what if we find some great moral repercussion of bloodletting as a medical treatment, it wouldn't change the fact that it doesn't work.

[Kosh]

Science does not look for things that are good or useful. It looks for things that are true.

How people use that knowledge is a separate matter.

It's also based on real evidence, and just in the New York Natural History Museum there's piles of it that's been dug up and examined overtime that decisively prove the theory of evolution to be true.

[karajorma]

Very good question.  I suppose I must also state that I believe that, as the Bible claims, we are God's "masterpiece." His work of highest value.  Now I also believe that the greater the "stuff" we are made of, the better, or worse, we can be.  An amoeba cannot be very evil, nor can it be very good.  A dog, on the other hand, can be vicious or nice.  A human can be Hitler or Mother Theresa.  Chimps obviously fall in there somewhere, and as a close genetic match to humans, I would say that they are a creature that has an essence that closely resembles a human soul.

Yet, they are not set apart like you or I. They do not contain within them the "pneuma" of God.

You're just weaselling out of answering the question here. If you're trying to claim that the "pneuma" of God is what causes the desire to help a friend in trouble then chimps should not attempt to help their friends.

If you're trying to claim that there is a sliding scale of soulness with amoeba at the bottom and chimps at the top then you've already failed at your claim that you can prove that behaviour is proof of God. There is such a scale. It's called intelligence and since humans are more intelligent than chimps you would expect them to show complex behaviour beyond that which chimps are capable of. You'd expect a chimp to show some human like behaviours, a dog to show less of them and an amoeba to show none of them. Guess what? That's exactly what you see.
 So in the end your so-called "proof" of God simply boils down to proof humans are more intelligent than other animals.

And if that wasn't what you've tried to prove with your mugging story and the answer to my last post I really have to ask what the hell were you trying to prove?

[JCDNWarrior]

Battuta, I have no idea. I can't seem to be able to place how that question helps the discussion though.

Though I do know governments can't advertise Newton's laws of motion to the reason, cause or method to kill people. They'd probably advice something like "[opposing/inpopular group] is making you poor, help us remove them" rather than that

I'm aware how science works, and I don't debate that. I've been attempting to explain my opinion that a few times now. It's how said science is used, or implemented. When the genius stop touching it and politics start to get involved in selling ideas to the public in order to gain more power.

Now my idea or opinion may not be fully correct - Heck, it's impossible to be fully correct about -anything-, being human and all - but I mean to introduce different perspectives and ideas, to consider when discussing these insolvable debates - the ramification of both theories. Nonetheless, it appears less fruitful than I hoped, so i'll leave it be with this final post back.

[Kosh]

When the genius stop touching it and politics start to get involved in selling ideas to the public in order to gain more power.

The only politicians I've ever seen use Evolution as a political tool are Republicans pushing Creationism.