Posted on 08/13/2005 3:49:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
If you found a metal fastener embedded in coal, which one would you believe was formed first, the coal or the fastener?
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
I assume you mean something akin to a PC or Mac. These are not specifically described in the bible. The human mind precedes the computer in history and is far more capable of data processing. The human mind is indeed described in the biblical texts, as well as other entities attendant to being human that science has hardly begun to touch upon.
Wrong question. First I would do whatever investigations necessary to determine if it really was coal, really was a zipper and that the zipper really was embedded in the coal. If I was convinced that the zipper really was embedded in coal that really was naturally formed, I would wonder under what circumstances a man made object could become embedded in coal. I would then investigate the properties of coal formation, the possibility of coal forming recently and the possibility of metal becoming embedded in preformed coal. I would even investigate the probability of it being a hoax. I might even consider a time traveler.
What did you expect me to say?
In regards to your doubts about indirect observation, I've excerpted a bit from a couple of evo friends of mine.
I think we could use a refresher course in philosophy about the concepts of "know", "observe", "image", "see", and "reality".
Everything we "know" is inferred from indirect evidence, even direct observation is really indirect. There are optical illusions and mirages that cause us to "see" things that do not exist. And the record of eyewitness testimony (or the experience of any classroom teacher or parent) demonstrates that we often do not see things that do clearly exist. The unaided sensory organs give us rather poor representations of "reality" in the "objective world".
This situation is greatly compounded when we use instruments to supplement our own sense organs. Even lenses distort and biological objects have to be greatly modified -- fixed, embedded, sliced, stained -- before we can "directly" see them in a microscope. Even then, we don't see a whole object but only bits and pieces and have to reconstruct what our best reasoning power, based on a lot of experience and a variety of control experiments, indicate we believe to be present. Photographs are no better. It is not just that they can be faked. It is exceptionally difficult to get the colors and the dimensions exactly "right". It is even harder to prove what we mean by "right".
The situation is far more greatly compounded with electronic instruments. There exist physical devices that measure a wide variety of events in the world and then present the data as pixel intensities on a grid or raster pattern instead of as numerical values in a table. The electronics, often assisted by an enormous amount of computation and manipulation of the raw data, results in what we call an "image".
We then look at the picture and say "Aha, I am looking DIRECTLY AT an atom!".
Atoms cannot be seen, if seeing requires vision, because they do not interact with photons in a way that can be used to produce an image visible to the eye. Atoms can be studied in ways that produce pictorial representations of their properties in a way that we call "seeing" them. The pictures show distinct entities that can be located in space, manipulated, and behave exactly as if they are real objects. Hence we talk about seeing. We are looking at representations, not reality. In that sense, we have "seen" atoms and even inside the atom. We have indirectly measured the properties and all the results are consistent with our models of the structure.
More important, this whole discussion of "directly seeing" is completely irrelevant to the original point. We have an enormity of evidence to convince even the most sceptical (but still rational) observer that atoms do exist. We do not have to observe them "directly" to draw that conclusion.
My impression of John Harshman's question: "Have we observed atoms" is simply to point out that we cannot "see" them directly. However, we have "observed" such a quantity of evidence that the existence of atoms is beyond question. Evolution works the same way.
r norman
Exactly. Good statement about "direct observation" too. The reason we think seeing is direct observation is that all the inference necessary to turn a bunch of photon impacts into a picture of the world is done automatically by our brains, and we never have to think about it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't think about it. "Direct observation" is a hallucination courtesy of your brain. As you point out, optical illusions are clues to the types of shortcuts and abstractions our brain goes through in creating what we choose to call "direct observation"; the shortcuts and abstractions work just fine under most conditions, but they can fail spectacularly. Further processing (what we generally call memory) can add more distortions. And that's why science demands objective, repeatable evidence.
John Harshman
I take it the assumption, or conclusion, is not an intuitive one. IOW, if it were really coal, and if it were truly a metal fastener, the answer of which was formed first would not be a simple one to ascertain. I also take it that, should this situation present itself, either side of the debate could interpret the evidence as supportive of one's point of view.
This is a gross oversimplification. The two entities - evolution and atoms - are so disparate by nature as to be incomparable. One is history. The other is present tense. At the same time, neither is fully apprehendable by human observation.
Then they obviously must not exist.
I'm not sure what kind of logic you employ to conclude as much, or that I would believe as much. While the details of life are indeed dependent upon the Creator, the Creator economizes in explaining the bigger picture. I use the biblical texts as a foundation upon which to interpret the details of reality. I find no contradiciton whatsoever in observing the presence of computers.
Obviously, if God had intended for us to use computers, he would have had Noah proficient in fortran.
Wow. I bet science loves that one!
Not sure what you mean here, and I have no idea where the quote you posted comes from. But of this I can assure you: Noah was proficient where it counts.
You mean overseeing the beginning of slavery?
I just don't understand why it's so hard for school boards to allow one simple disclaimer to teaching about the moon landing. Some people believe it was faked, it's not difficult and it doesn't undermine the THEORY of the moon landing.
See how ridiculous that sounds? The fact is, none of the people demanding this "disclaimer" are demanding the same "disclaimer" when teaching about other facets of science that are "only" theory, such as Atomics, Gravitation, etc.
I fully expect someone will read the satire in the Onion about the "Intelligent Falling Theory," fail to comprehend that it was satire, and demand that it be given equal time with the Theory of Gravity in Physics class.
Another couple of generations of this Intellectual Ludditism, and the only jobs Americans will be qualified to do will be order takers at fast food restaurants, toilet cleaners, and squeegee men hanging out at major intersections.
I don't think the biblical texts denote as much. At any rate, that is not what I mean.
One day you will learn the truth, but it will be too late. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
</creationism mode>
Perhaps if I had said "servants" ...
You really don't understand? I doubt it. But do you understand your point is irrelevant to the subject at hand? Do you really think the lunar landing has been as much a subject of controversy as the philosophy of evolution?
Nope. Try "survival."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.