Posted on 07/06/2005 6:51:06 PM PDT by infocats
In the fall of 1900, a young German physicist, Max Planck, began making calculations about the glow emitted by objects heated to high temperature. In retrospect, it seems like a small-bore problem, just the task to give a young scientist at the beginning of his career.
But if the question sounds minor, Planck's answer was not. His work led him to discover a new world, the bizarre realm of quantum mechanics, where matter is both a particle and a wave and where the predictable stability of Newton gives way to probabilistic uncertainty.
As Dennis Overbye of The New York Times once put it in these pages, Planck had grasped "a loose thread that when tugged would eventually unravel the entire fabric of what had passed for reality."
Physicists reeled. But physics survived. And once they got over their shock, scientists began testing Planck's ideas with observation and experiment, work that eventually produced computer chips, lasers, CAT scans and a host of other useful technologies - all made possible through our new understanding of the way the world works.
Biologists might do well to keep Planck in mind as they confront creationism and "intelligent design" and battle to preserve the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Usually, when confronting the opponents of evolution, biologists make the case that evolution should be taught because it is true.
They cite radiocarbon dating to show that Earth is billions of years old, not a few thousand years old, as some creationists would have it. Biologists cite research on microbes, or the eye, or the biology of the cell to shoot down arguments that life is so "irreducibly complex" that only a supernatural force or agent could have called it into being, as intelligent designers would have it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I was just letting you know that your criticism of uniformitarianism is a criticism of lots of scientific fields, not just evolution. Old Earth and uniformitarianism were established before the theory of evolution even existed. The relative ages of most strata were determined before evolution.
Age measurements amount to massive finger pointing and circular reasoning. If a new archaeological discovery is made that does not fit within the parameters of evolutionary theory, the theory evolves (which is not unscientific in and of itself).
Most fossils are found in strata that has already been dated, and which contains that era's fossils. So wild discrepancies with the theory would not be possible for evolutionists to wave away. For example the Burgess Shale is dated middle Cambrian Era (about 550 million years). No about of messing about with dates, or the theory, would explain finding a mammal fossil, or a bird fossil, or a dinosaur fossil in the Burgess Shale. Finding any of these would immediately falsify the evolution of that species, and throw serious doubt on the evolution in general. That's quite a tight spot which the Theory of Evolution has put itself in. But despite a hundred years of work on the burgess shale no such example has been found.
And this goes for various other fossil beds around the world. No major discrepancies. This is what I am talking about high odds for. The fossil record is not random - if it were there would be the odd discrepancy. It is sorted, but sorted in a way that subsequent eras of life throughout time would produce. Until someone comes up with a better explaination for the lack of discrepancies, this is the best explaination.
Many of the more prominent Intelligent Design people accept these strata represent different eras of life on Earth, some also accept common descent of species.
At what time in history was there less diversity of living things than today? And how do you know?
No trace of mammals in the cambrian, no trace of reptiles in the cambrian, no trace of birds in the cambrian. No trace of land animals at all during the cambrian.
What non-living time indicators exist that correspond to your historical arrangement of the complexity of living things?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/timescale.html
What assumptions (either axioms or logical extensions of them) are made when estimating the geological changes that have occurred during Earth's history?
How would possible cataclysmic events effect your model of predicted historical patterns and events?
Cataclysmic events such as volcanoes? meteor impacts? they leave evidence if that's what you mean.
How are your predictions more reliable than the ability to predict future weather patterns?
It's more about accuracy than reliability. I am not aware of any geological predictions. I am not interested enough in geology to find out.
The lack of a logical connection between more fundamental axioms implies that evolutionary theory itself is axiomatic. I cannot argue against a premise when there is none. This is what evolutionist hypocritically accuse creationists of.
Name two of these fundamental axioms so that I can see the lack of a logical connection between them for myself.
We know for certain that time does not flow at the same rate when measured at different velocities. So when you claim the earth or universe is a certain age (always stated as fact) where is the measurement valid?
On Earth and within our solar system. Billions of years of radiodecay have occured. This is what the measurements show. Relativity is beside the point - it doesn't matter how much time has passed relative to somewhere else in the universe, just on Earth.
What parts of the universe are older or younger?
I am younger than the Earth.
How much variation is there? .02%? 100,000%? If you admit that the universe did not always exist in its present form, what effect did the formation have on the time indicators we now use to measure the age of the universe and earth?
There is no known way to significantly alter the radiodecay rate. I recall that a change in the radiodecay rate would leave noticable effects, although I cannot remember what those changes are.
I probably got too snippy in my earlier post. For that you have my public apology.
I do keep an open mind, however, after looking at all the data, I had no choice but to reject creationism and ID.
Which parts?
I think my posting you a link that you don't even bother to look at *is* insulting.
And your textbook is wrong if you think it is describing the algebra that's taught in high school. This requires more than ten rules.
I would take the time to name them all if it really was crucial to my point but you are getting sidetracked trying to make a simple mistake into a case of incompetence.
If it is not crucial, why did you bother to say *eight* axioms in the first place? If it is not crucial, why bother to look it up in a book and claim ten later? The reason it is crucial and the reason you bothered to do those things is because you want to give the appearance of knowing what you're talking about. In fact, I think you probably even think you *do* know what you're talking about. But I'm not going to let you get away with it.
...but when someone says that algebra actually represents reality...
Which no one claims, unless you are making that claim. If you are, I will be happy to wager, based on the track record of similar claims of Truth in the past, that you are wrong.
Whether you "choose" to believe they are real...
Again, you are simply showing your ignorance of math and science. We choose the axioms of mathematical and scientific theories based on utility. In science the utility of theories is based largely on their ability to make very good predictions about physical phenomena. There is no claim of Absolute Truth.
No. People have choice, not faith, in which axiom systems to use in a particular situation. Should an axiom system not yield the desired results (with respect to physics, for example), another axiom system will be invented. Note that only five axioms suffice to give the integers (and prove that such axioms cannot be proved consistent.) A different set is needed for geometry (and these can be used to prove that geometry is consistent). Other axioms are needed for complex numbers, etc. Groups need only four axioms but it's surprising how rich the theory is. (Semi-groups and quasi-groups need only three.)
So, you know it is an error and yet in your original post you say
Even pure sciences like algebra are based on faith.Leaving aside your classification of algebra as science as loose terminology or another simple mistake, the only logical reconciliation I can make from these two statements is that you think scientists and mathematicians who *accept* (to use a neutral term) say evolution or algebra resp. are stupidly thinking that scientific and mathematical theories are True and Real. Well, that is wrong and ignorant because scientists and mathematicians *don't* accept axioms on faith as True and Real but as a choice based on their utility.
If that is *not* your point, then you aren't making it clearly at all.
I guess I am to believe you do not make these kind of mistakes.
Oh, it is not unheard of, to say the least. The difference is that, when my mistake is pointed out, I admit it and don't just try to bluster through. I also try to verify factual claims, even when fairly certain, before I post.
And you are giving the appearance of a thick-headed, time waster. ... Do you realize what a condescending, self-important, weasel you come across as.
Hahaha. Don't like getting called for your mistakes, eh? That's typical. There are few anti-Es who will simply admit their errors and lack of knowledge when called.
I am not exactly sure what you were trying to wager here.
I think my post was quite clear, but to spell it out in detail, the wager is *if* you are claiming that ordinary algebra is somehow a True description of Reality, e.g. that space-time is continuous, then this claim will be contradicted by future observations. I base my wager on the poor track record of many prior claims of Truth.
BTW, although I didn't point it out before, you're also wrong to claim that evolution has no foundational mathematical theory.
There is no leap of faith involved in this. We *create* and *choose* these theories so that there is a reliable correspondence between the mathematical predictions and observations. Is it a leap of faith to expect a hammer to be good at driving nails? No, we create the hammer to be good at it.
One might argue that simply supposing that we can create these good theories is a leap of faith. I reject that contention also - it is not a leap of faith, but rather based on a solid track record. We *have* created good theories and there is no reason to suppose we can't continue to do so.
mathematics - n : a science ...
This meaning of the word "science" is "an organized body of knowledge" examples being "domestic science" or "culinary science." Is that what you meant by the word when you said this?
ALL science is founded upon faith. Even pure sciences like algebra are based on faith.If so, then you're saying that culinary science and domestic science are founded on faith. That is a curious view.
I am still waiting for someone to enlighten me on that.
Look here to get a flavor of the mathematical foundations of at least one major part of modern evolutionary theory. I'm sure if you're really interested, more information is easily available.
Okay, then this should ring a bell :)
I rather think of at least it's origins somewhat earlier in the form of cave art and some sense of "being" after death.
Even Neanderthal's burial of their dead with flowers some 35,000 years earlier bore some sense of Deuteronmy 4:19 and Malachi 1:11.
Schroeder's earlier tie-in with Archbishop James Ussher, notwithstanding.
God's grace to You and Yours.
I will try once more. As I have said repeatedly, it is not an assumption and it is not faith. We *create* the scientific theories and *choose* their axioms so that the predictions are good.
EVERYTHING you have said about axiomatic foundations of math apply to faith in God.
I suspect that virtually all religious would object vehemently if I were to suggest that they create God and choose His properties in the same way mathematicians create theories and choose their axioms. I assume you are religious. Do you actually feel that way? I mean, is it really just a choice of yours to believe that God created the universe? I bet not. I'm quite sure that if someone were to say otherwise, you would consider that person wrong and wouldn't feel that they'd simply made a different choice from yours.
Yet if someone says we *choose* to accept the existence of God and make real world predictions which are found accurate and useful, this is not "science" to evolutionists but religion.
Then let's see a prediction. Here are the rules. You must lay out a theory with God as an axiom. Then you must deduce in a valid proof your prediction from those axioms. The God axiom must play an intrinsic role in the proof, that is, it must not be possible to derive the prediction without it. The prediction must be at least in principle testable and preferably practically testable. If you can do this, you may be on to something and then we can compare the power and utility of your theory to the power and utility of competing theories.
You cannot distinguish the acceptance of mathematical axioms from the acceptance of God's existence.
I think I can. The nature of the commitment is completely different. Religious people accept God's existence as a True Fact. Mathematicians shape their theories to suit their purposes and don't think of them as True Facts.
Now you claim these are the same. If so then you ought to be able to tell me some attribute of God that you have chosen simply based on its utility in the same way the mathematicians accept or reject the axiom of choice or the parallel postulate.
It is quite amusing to me that evolutionists regard their theory as completely scientific, but not math.
It all depends on what you mean by science. I was using it, and I think this is the common usage, to mean bodies of knowledge studied by the scientific method, the stuff you learn about in high school science classes, the things written up in Nature and Science. It is often mathematical, but the math isn't the object of the study, simply a means.
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.