Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?

[setarcos]

You don't do blind credence- so where do you
see the attributes of God you state as facts?

I don't state the attributes of God as facts since I can't prove what the attributes of a theoretical being which stands at the pinnacle of infinite ability in reality would be like.
The scriptures I believe in describe such a God as ultimately ineffable. The effable specifics of which may be theologically derived from an analysis of scriptural revelation.
Hypothetically, what we may infer about those attributes, at least philosophically, would come from the rational analysis done by capable individuals in various fields of study of the hypothetical progression of the finite attributes that can be found in nature.
E.g.: There are various degrees of 'intelligence' found in nature. So what would the progression of intelligent abilities look like at its extremes?

All "faith" based? "Proof(s)?

What definition of faith are you applying ?

The one I defined above for you.

Why do you speak of proof, knowing it has no more
role in science than do 100% unevidened statements
presented as facts?

I'm prodded to speak of proof since faith is often derogatorily applied to religion as a sign of no proof, therefore no evidence as if science doesn't rely upon faith in its interpretations as well.
Proof is often demanded of religion while science itself can offer none beyond interpreted evidence and scientists none beyond their personal convictions.
One doesn't have to search far before one finds scientists and laymen presenting scientific results as evidence of fact.
But problems arise when one decides what exact fact the evidence is of as if it is indisputable. Both science and religion can suffer from those problems.
That's one reason that even the results of the almighty scientific process of producing evidence is subject to revision of its interpretations.

You seem here to be resorting back to the accusation that all religious sentiments are 100% un-evidenced, which I thought was still being debated?
I wasn't aware that the argument had been settled since science would have to present 100% un-evidenced statements as facts in order to settle it.

Natural laws.....lets do the gas laws... are 100%
empirical in nature.

Yes, they are considered to be empirical. But that takes a bit of interpretation of the scientific 'jargon' involved as well.
The empirical in science is considered empirical only at the expense of ignoring our real limitations. Realistically these things are mental conveniences not actual depictions of reality.
Even if you don't have faith in a purposeful sustainment of our reality you must still have faith in unknowable purposeless 'laws' that are sustaining our reality.
Science is necessarily infused with a lot of jargon that must be interpreted because it is ultimately based on faith that the future will resemble the present since human beings are invariably removed from direct knowledge of reality.

For instance, consider the following...



Definition :

em-pir-i-cal

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

So what are we actually observing as concerns gases? Certainly not the gas molecules themselves.
What we are actually doing is interpolating values which themselves were derived from instrumentation not direct observation of what they are measuring.

Science in some cases even considers predictions to be empirical...

Empirical prediction intervals improve energy forecasting
Empirical density forecasting methods provide a probabilistic amendment to existing point forecasts.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) (.gov)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC5565406

Now, can you tell me what can be verified about a prediction? What can be observed about a prediction? Or experienced? It’s a prediction. There's nothing that can be experienced, verified, or observed yet. Unless you consider some sort of information received psychically or metaphysically to be valid.

There is no way to empirically experience a prediction. We can only experience what led us to make the prediction and when/if that prediction comes to fruition as reality. Scientists aren't concerned with those little details though because it’s not convenient. So there has to be a certain amount of interpretation of the scientific jargon used.

In actuality there will always be a 'gap' between our 'empirical' observations and actual reality that requires interpretation and a dash of faith.
With a little research online one can even run into seemingly contradictory statements because of the scientific jargon used.

For example...
Googles AI overview gives us the following

"Are the natural gas laws theoretical?"

Yes, the natural gas laws, particularly when referring to the "ideal gas law," are considered theoretical because they describe the behavior of a hypothetical gas with perfect properties, which doesn't exist in reality; real gases deviate from ideal behavior, especially at high pressures and low temperatures.

Key points about the theoretical nature of gas laws:

• Ideal gas concept:

The gas laws are based on the concept of an "ideal gas," which assumes particles have no volume and no intermolecular forces, which is not true for real gases.

• Explanatory model:

While not perfectly accurate for all situations, the ideal gas law provides a useful model to understand and predict gas behavior under many conditions.

• Kinetic Molecular Theory:

The theoretical basis for the gas laws is the Kinetic Molecular Theory, which explains gas behavior based on the motion of particles.

And...
"Are the natural gas laws empirical?"

• Yes, the natural gas laws, also known as the "gas laws" are considered empirical laws, meaning they are based on observed data and relationships between pressure, volume, and temperature of a gas, rather than a deep theoretical understanding of the underlying mechanisms; examples include Boyle's Law, Charles' Law, and Avogadro's Law.

Key points about gas laws being empirical:

• Derived from experiments:

These laws were developed through repeated experiments and observations of how gases behave under different conditions.

• No complete theoretical explanation:

While the kinetic theory of gases later provided a more detailed explanation for gas behavior, the initial empirical gas laws were established before this theory was fully developed.

So take your pick, are they empirical or theoretical? I'd say the gas laws are defined with mathematical descriptions of theoretical conditions not empirical observations.
In other words, the gas laws are theoretical descriptions of empirical observations.
The language of the natural gas laws is literally mathematical in nature. Now look back at the definition of empirical and ask yourself if mathematics is empirical.
Depends on how we deal with the jargon of science doesn't it.

 

[setarcos]

Probability that they are wrong? Awful small.

Probability that they were correct after the fact...100%.

Probability that the future will uphold present expectations? Incalculable since, at the fundamental subatomic levels of reality we don't know what sustains the present values used in the calculations.

This in fact is the logical fallacy of confirmation bias writ large.
Consider a simple coin toss.
All else being equal, probability of the coin coming up heads or tails…100% barring balancing on its side.
Probability of the coin coming up heads…50%. Tails? 50%
Probability that the coil will come up tails after coming up 1 trillion times heads? Still only 50%. Why can we say that? Because we know the variables involved. We know the foundations of the possible outcomes. And we know what effects the past and present can have on the future coin flip.
If we didn’t we would surely say that it’s much more probable that heads would come up again after doing so for 1 trillion times already just based on observation of past outcomes.

As far as things like the ‘gas laws’ though? We don’t know all the potential variables. We don’t know the fundamental why’s which dictate atomic values. And we certainly don’t know why the future has to emulate the past and our present.
All the natural laws work because that’s the way they work. That’s all we can say.

Uncountable trillions of demontrations every minute
world wide and you call it conjecture??

Uncountable trillions? And how many anomalous results do you think have simply been disregarded because they don't fit what the accepted 'laws' dictate that they should be? I've personally witnessed many anomalous results that have been written off as instrumentation error or a flaw in the experiment or some error committed by the experimenter without confirmation. Those few that are confirmed seem to be used as a blanket coverage for all the others. And that's just my experience. Imagine some professional that gets a one off anomalous result for some unknown reason that reflects what reality is really like. What else can they do but disregard the result outright? The 1 trillionth and 1 result which came up tails instead of heads.
As for me, I wonder…what if that one discarded anomalous result was the one that could have led to a breakthrough.

And by the way...predicting future expectations based on passed experimentation is literally conjecture. If it weren't it wouldn't be a prediction. It would be a future fact. But we cannot establish future facts because we are necessarily working with limited information in the present. ERGO- science IS conjecture.

There's some semantics problem going on.

I always expect a certain amount.
Consider this though...
The fact that something works as demonstrated is not what is at issue in this discussion.
The fact that a car works as it is expected to work doesn't tell us anything fundamental about why it does so presently nor if it will continue to do so in the future.

And- just to save you time- nobody here on the atbiest sice of fence needs lessons in basic science anyway.

I never said they did.
My experience here and there on these forums indicates to me that your statement is a bit of an overreach though.

Stay safe out there. This is fun and interesting. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Audie]

Probability that they were correct after the fact...100%.

Probability that the future will uphold present expectations? Incalculable since, at the fundamental subatomic levels of reality we don't know what sustains the present values used in the calculations.

This in fact is the logical fallacy of confirmation bias writ large.
Consider a simple coin toss.
All else being equal, probability of the coin coming up heads or tails…100% barring balancing on its side.
Probability of the coin coming up heads…50%. Tails? 50%
Probability that the coil will come up tails after coming up 1 trillion times heads? Still only 50%. Why can we say that? Because we know the variables involved. We know the foundations of the possible outcomes. And we know what effects the past and present can have on the future coin flip.
If we didn’t we would surely say that it’s much more probable that heads would come up again after doing so for 1 trillion times already just based on observation of past outcomes.

As far as things like the ‘gas laws’ though? We don’t know all the potential variables. We don’t know the fundamental why’s which dictate atomic values. And we certainly don’t know why the future has to emulate the past and our present.
All the natural laws work because that’s the way they work. That’s all we can say.

Uncountable trillions? And how many anomalous results do you think have simply been disregarded because they don't fit what the accepted 'laws' dictate that they should be? I've personally witnessed many anomalous results that have been written off as instrumentation error or a flaw in the experiment or some error committed by the experimenter without confirmation. Those few that are confirmed seem to be used as a blanket coverage for all the others. And that's just my experience. Imagine some professional that gets a one off anomalous result for some unknown reason that reflects what reality is really like. What else can they do but disregard the result outright? The 1 trillionth and 1 result which came up tails instead of heads.
As for me, I wonder…what if that one discarded anomalous result was the one that could have led to a breakthrough.

And by the way...predicting future expectations based on passed experimentation is literally conjecture. If it weren't it wouldn't be a prediction. It would be a future fact. But we cannot establish future facts because we are necessarily working with limited information in the present. ERGO- science IS conjecture.

I always expect a certain amount.
Consider this though...
The fact that something works as demonstrated is not what is at issue in this discussion.
The fact that a car works as it is expected to work doesn't tell us anything fundamental about why it does so presently nor if it will continue to do so in the future.

I never said they did.
My experience here and there on these forums indicates to me that your statement is a bit of an overreach though.

Stay safe out there. This is fun and interesting. Thanks for taking the time.

Likewise.

I just took a sec to
glance -at


Insanely busy here
for next how many days


Later

 

[Astrophile]

It is a fact that the theory of macro evolution requires faith in its presumptions since it, of necessity, must rely on unknowns in its propositions. Just like the other sciences.

What do you understand by 'the theory of macro evolution', and what are its 'presumptions' and the 'unknown propositions'? Please give specific answers.

Even more faith is needed in the evolutionary sciences though since it relies on hypothetical, unverifiable, singularly unique events which have not been witnessed nor can be experimentally reenacted with any true exactitude.

In what way are the evolutionary sciences different from the theory of macro evolution? What are the unwitnessed hypothetical unverifiable unique events that the evolutionary sciences rely on? Again, please give specific answers.

 

[Astrophile]

Uncountable trillions? And how many anomalous results do you think have simply been disregarded because they don't fit what the accepted 'laws' dictate that they should be? I've personally witnessed many anomalous results that have been written off as instrumentation error or a flaw in the experiment or some error committed by the experimenter without confirmation.

This is too general. What specific anomalous results do you know of that have been written off as unimportant. The anomalous precession of Mercury, discovered during the 19th century, which led to an unsuccessful search for an intra-Mercurian planet? Errors in the predicted dates of perihelion of comets, which led to the identification of non-gravitational perturbations? The anomalous fluorescence observed by Roentgen in 1895 and the anomalous radiation from uranium discovered by Becquerel in 1896? All of these were investigated and led to important advances in science.

Those few that are confirmed seem to be used as a blanket coverage for all the others. And that's just my experience. Imagine some professional that gets a one off anomalous result for some unknown reason that reflects what reality is really like. What else can they do but disregard the result outright? The 1 trillionth and 1 result which came up tails instead of heads.
As for me, I wonder…what if that one discarded anomalous result was the one that could have led to a breakthrough.

Do you think that the discarded anomalous results that you have witnessed could, if properly investigated, have led to the discovery that the Earth is flat, or that it is immobile at the centre of the universe, or that matter does not consist of atoms, or that stars do not generate energy by nuclear fusion? If not, why do you think that discarded anomalous results could have led to the disproof of the gas laws and kinetic theory or of the theory of evolution?

And by the way...predicting future expectations based on passed experimentation is literally conjecture. If it weren't it wouldn't be a prediction. It would be a future fact. But we cannot establish future facts because we are necessarily working with limited information in the present. ERGO- science IS conjecture.

What happens when a scientific prediction is fulfilled? Do you think that it was pure chance that the total eclipse of the Sun on April 8th this year happened as predicted, or that it is pure conjecture that an annular eclipse will occur on October 2nd and be visible from the Pacific Ocean?

 

[setarcos]

What do you understand by 'the theory of macro evolution', and what are its 'presumptions' and the 'unknown propositions'?

You know...I wonder if I really understand anything about anything anymore.
Definitionally it is claimed that at the macroevolutionary scale significant changes are occurring at the specie or species level - specifically encompassing and explaining the origins, diversification, and extinction of species throughout time.
I suppose some of its related presumptions would be that the presumed mechanisms for the origins and diversification of species over time is in actuality proven fact however since macroevolutionary processes have not been witnessed it is my understanding that they remain theoretical at best and have been subject to revision.

You'll have to specify what you mean by 'unknown' propositions. In order for a proposition to be a proposition it has to be known doesn't it? Perhaps you mean to ask whether or not certain claims of some evolutionary propositions are known to be factual or remain unknown as to their factual status (theoretical)?
Why do you ask? Is this in reference to something I've said?

In what way are the evolutionary sciences different from the theory of macro evolution?

Things change over time. That is not in dispute. Time scales allowing, witnesses can and have attested to that fact. Myself included. Macroevolution however, it is my understanding deals with unwitnessed events the driving mechanisms of which remain completely theoretical. Is this not correct? Please give specific answers as to why yes or why no.

What are the unwitnessed hypothetical unverifiable unique events that the evolutionary sciences rely on?

The "blind" creation of life from non - living matter. The "purposeless" actual transition of one species fossil representative into the eventual fossil representation of another species. The role, 'survival' of the fittest actually plays in transitioning one species into a new species.
The mutative capability of simpler organic structures to "blindly" create viable, more complex organic structures through adding "purposeless" informational complexity.
As far as I'm aware, none of these mechanistic events have actually been witnessed - only theorized.
If they have, please give specific answers as to when and by who. I'm really interested in any new developments in the field.

 

[Astrophile]

You know...I wonder if I really understand anything about anything anymore.
Definitionally it is claimed that at the macroevolutionary scale significant changes are occurring at the specie or species level - specifically encompassing and explaining the origins, diversification, and extinction of species throughout time.
I suppose some of its related presumptions would be that the presumed mechanisms for the origins and diversification of species over time is in actuality proven fact however since macroevolutionary processes have not been witnessed it is my understanding that they remain theoretical at best and have been subject to revision.

The essential presumptions of macroevolutionary theory are that living things reproduce themselves (talk to your parents if you doubt whether this is proven fact), that offspring are not identical to their parents, that more offspring are produced than can possibly survive to reproduce themselves, that the survivors are those that are best adapted to their environment, that environments change with the passage of time, and that small genetic variations occur from one generation to the next. Which of these do you regard as not proven fact?

You'll have to specify what you mean by 'unknown' propositions. In order for a proposition to be a proposition it has to be known doesn't it? Perhaps you mean to ask whether or not certain claims of some evolutionary propositions are known to be factual or remain unknown as to their factual status (theoretical)?
Why do you ask? Is this in reference to something I've said?

You spoke of 'unknowns in its propositions'. I want you to give examples of evolutionary propositions that you think remain unknown as to their factual status.

Things change over time. That is not in dispute. Time scales allowing, witnesses can and have attested to that fact. Myself included. Macroevolution however, it is my understanding deals with unwitnessed events the driving mechanisms of which remain completely theoretical. Is this not correct? Please give specific answers as to why yes or why no.

As I have already said, the ultimate fact behind evolution is that living things reproduce themselves and that offspring are not identical to their parents. This is the principle of descent with modification. Do you regard these as unwitnessed events? The fossil record and the patterns of genetic similarities and differences provide ample evidence that terrestrial life has changed radically during the Earth's history.

The "blind" creation of life from non - living matter. The "purposeless" actual transition of one species fossil representative into the eventual fossil representation of another species. The role, 'survival' of the fittest actually plays in transitioning one species into a new species.

Which do you think is more probable, that the apparent transition of one fossil species into another fossil species is the result of descent with modification continued over many generations, or that this apparent transition is the result of the supernatural creation of two slightly different species separated by a geologically short time interval? It is not so much 'survival of the fittest' as reproductive success continued over many generations. Whether evolution is 'blind' or 'purposeless' is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

The mutative capability of simpler organic structures to "blindly" create viable, more complex organic structures through adding "purposeless" informational complexity.
As far as I'm aware, none of these mechanistic events have actually been witnessed - only theorized.
If they have, please give specific answers as to when and by who. I'm really interested in any new developments in the field.

This is out of my field. However, geneticists could probably put you right on these matters.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is a fact that the theory of macro evolution requires faith in its presumptions

There is no "theory of macro evolution"

There is just the theory of evolution.

since it, of necessity, must rely on unknowns in its propositions.

If you are referring to common ancestry of species, then this is not a theory or hypothesis.
That's a genetic fact. Species share ancestry as demonstrated by genetics.

Evolution theory deals with / explains the mechanisms that account for said fact.
If you disprove evolution theory tomorrow, then the facts remain.
And one of those facts is that genetics demonstrate that species share ancestry.

Even more faith is needed in the evolutionary sciences though since it relies on hypothetical, unverifiable, singularly unique events which have not been witnessed nor can be experimentally reenacted with any true exactitude.

Such as?

I meant exactly how I define faith in your question above.
All science invariably involves faith in its suppositions.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems invoke faith in science.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle invokes faith in science.
No scientific laws have been proven. All scientific laws invoke faith in their affirmation.

The way you are using the word "faith" is very different from how it is used in religious context.
So much so that I'm going to call it an equivocation fallacy.

I suspect you do the same every time you choose to 'adopt' the opinion of some scientists experimental results as accurately implying something.

Not sure what you are on about, but science doesn't work through the "opinions" of scientists.

Do you choose to believe in evolution?

No. My acceptance of evolution is a compulsion as a result of being convinced by the evidence.
Likewise, I also don't "choose" to "believe" that if I jump up, I'll fall back down instead of shooting into space.
I'm forced by compulsion as a result of being convinced by the evidence that that is what would happen.
If I stop breathing, I'll die. I don't "choose to believe" that either.

Then your probably choosing to adopt someone's opinion based on their research into that field of study.

Again, no. Science is not based on mere opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Things change over time. That is not in dispute. Time scales allowing, witnesses can and have attested to that fact. Myself included. Macroevolution however, it is my understanding deals with unwitnessed events the driving mechanisms of which remain completely theoretical. Is this not correct? Please give specific answers as to why yes or why no.

No, that is not correct.
Macroevolution doesn't deal with specific instances of evolution or events. It deals only with timescales / amount of accumulated changes.

A good analogy here is the process of "walking" as analogous to "evolving".
Walking happens by the accumulation of single steps. Just like evolution happens by the accumulation of single (genetic) changes.
If you accumulate / take 3 steps, you have covered a micro-distance.
If you accumulate / take 10000 steps, you have covered a macro-distance.

That's all it is.

There is no difference in "process". There is no specific "event" or "thing" that occurs for "micro" to become "macro". The only real difference is the amount of accumulation over time.

If you have a species that accumulates micro-changes over many many generations, then speciation is inevitable.
1+1+1+1+1+...................+1 = big number.

You are presenting it as if "macro evolution" is some kind of special step where in between the many 1+1+1+1's, you suddenly have a "+1000".

This is just not how it works.

Macro is the inevitable result of continuous accumulation of micro.

The "blind" creation of life from non - living matter.

The process of evolution doesn't rely, at all, on any specific beginning of life itself.
Evolution deals with the origins of species / diversity. Not the origins of life itself.

The "purposeless" actual transition of one species fossil representative into the eventual fossil representation of another species.

That isn't purposeless at all, as it happens in context of adapting to an ever-changing environment.
It's not "random" in that sense.

The role, 'survival' of the fittest actually plays in transitioning one species into a new species.

Yes, natural selection / evolution is inevitable when you have systems that reproduce with variation in an ever-changing environment and which are in a struggle for survival and in competition with peers over limited resources.

The mutative capability of simpler organic structures to "blindly" create viable, more complex organic structures through adding "purposeless" informational complexity.
As far as I'm aware, none of these mechanistic events have actually been witnessed - only theorized.

That is just plain false.
We observe random mutation in every newborn.
Natural selection is the inevitable result... The best adapted to the current habitat have the best chances of survival and reproduction.
What don't you find reasonable about that?

If they have, please give specific answers as to when and by who. I'm really interested in any new developments in the field.

This isn't "new" at all and has been known ever since Darwin came up with it.
Darwin just didn't know how the small changes occurred or how they were past on to off spring.
He predicted that biology must have some kind of system for this.

This system was discovered in the 50s: DNA

 

[setarcos]

This is too general. What specific anomalous results do you know of that have been written off as unimportant.

It was meant to be general since the question was posed hypothetically and arose as a result of my personal experiences which cannot be proven to those in this thread. I wouldn't say all anomalies are written off as unimportant. I'd say some are just written off because they can't currently be fitted into the popular paradigm.

How do you think paradigm shifts eventually occur? In Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", quoting from Quanta Magazine,

"…he observed that scientists spend long periods taking small steps. They pose and solve puzzles while collectively interpreting all data within a fixed worldview or theoretical framework...Sooner or later, though, facts crop up that clash with the reigning paradigm. Crisis ensues. The scientists wring their hands, reexamine their assumptions and eventually make a revolutionary shift to a new paradigm, a radically different and truer understanding of nature."

A lot of politicking goes on between the beginnings of that crisis and the popular acceptance of the new paradigm.


As far as being unimportant, I would say that depends on who the person is that is dealing with the anomaly. Some anomalous results are simply discarded into the bin of historical oblivion regardless of proper verification. I've seen this done many times in college laboratories. The standing presumption is that if the results conflict with the current popular theory then they are a mistake.
Now what do we do if the "mistakes" are one off events that reflect reality but cannot be duplicated due to unknown hidden variables?

I would consider all anomalous results or data to be important in that they indicate something about our reality. Realistically all anomalies must be categorized. Its which category we put which anomalies in and why that is sometimes questionable.

Some scientists simply don't have the time to explain why they think the anomalous result is unimportant or an error without verification unless concurrent experiments turn up the same results persistently. But as I've said, I question how many anomalies are actually one off events that reflect reality which cannot be readily duplicated due to unknown variables but crop up from time to time do to unrecognized happenstance of similar conditions.

After all, by their very nature anomalies are unexpected results with potentially unknown causes which cannot be duplicated purposefully by the scientist all the time.
Sometimes the anomalies can be duplicated but cannot be currently explained given current understanding of the current paradigm so they are shelved in expectation of later advancements in knowledge.
And like all things subject to human endeavors, some scientists 'disappear', suppress, or ignore anomalies they think might interfere with their personal agendas forcing them to ashamedly abandon their promoted theories once found out.

The anomalous precession of Mercury, discovered during the 19th century, which led to an unsuccessful search for an intra-Mercurian planet? Errors in the predicted dates of perihelion of comets, which led to the identification of non-gravitational perturbations? The anomalous fluorescence observed by Roentgen in 1895 and the anomalous radiation from uranium discovered by Becquerel in 1896? All of these were investigated and led to important advances in science.

I never said anomalies don't lead to breakthroughs. On the contrary anomalies and the dumb luck to be in their presence are often the things that lead to breakthroughs. Perhaps anomalies in the data that have been shelved will, in the future, lead to paradigm shifting breakthroughs. Perhaps even complete reformulations of our understanding of reality, which, if the current news and articles I'm reading concerning the anomalies crisis in particle physics are true, might happen within my lifetime.


My main point was that science can be as political as any other human enterprise. Sometimes people direct what anomalies they pay attention to and how those anomalies are categorized according to their personal agendas at the time. That's not to say that the truth won't out eventually. Just that some scientists hinder sciences progress instead of helping it along.
Some people like to romanticize the scientific process and the publicized scientific community. However, if you read enough revisionist history and catch enough science news you’re going to realize just how nasty scientists can treat each other and how politicized science can get. Even to the point of fabricated data not so easily checked. Publish or perish and all that nonsense.

Do you think that the discarded anomalous results that you have witnessed could, if properly investigated, have led to the discovery that the Earth is flat,

Lol, 20/20 hindsight seems a surer bet doesn't it.

IF the earths dimensions weren't known at the time AND the earth was actually flat (depending on what you mean by that) then sure...why not?
While a 'flat' earth is unlikely given what we think we know now about planetary formation and geological and physical forces, and what it means to be flat, is it actually an impossibility? Please give specific reasons for why or why not.
Could anomalous results have led to a reanalysis of what we perceive as spherical versus flat in a planetary body? I don't know. But why not? Perhaps our perception of a spherical earth is merely some sort of holographic projection of our sensory misperception of what we would consider an actual flat earth to be. There is a legit theory floating around that this universe is a holographic simulation.
After all, reality IS stranger than we CAN think. Incidentally, again, depending on how we define things, earth isn't round or a sphere either. And what the 'flat earthers' are talking about isn't just a simple 'flat' object. Note: I am not a 'flat earther'.
I'm speaking in hypotheticals since you asked a hypothetical question.

But in all seriousness, how we define 'flat' and how we experience 'flatness' when it comes to such large scale structures is a matter of sensory interpretation.
Discussions of dimensionality are fundamentally hard to mentally conceive and thus requires mental conveniences for us to consider them.
We don't perceive dimensions realistically. For instance, can you actually draw a line if it’s a one dimensional object? We cannot perceive one dimensional objects as they are, we can only conceive of them as a mental convenience for functional reasons.
What exists if an object only has length? Do the two end points of the line actually exist if points have a dimension of zero having location but no dimension? How do you locate a dimensionless object in a dimension? What does it mean if their only quality is location?

How can it be said that a line contains an infinite series of points along its length if the points are dimensionless things while the line is not? How about circles? Two dimensional objects consisting of a relationship between one dimensional concepts, Length (circumference) and Width (diameter). Themselves consisting of an infinite series of zero dimensional points.

And the sphere? A three dimensional object consisting of an infinite series of progressively smaller two dimensional objects, themselves consisting of an infinite series of one dimensional objects, themselves consisting of an infinite series of zero dimensional objects. How does the sphere dimensionally exist if its constituent parts are ultimately founded upon zero dimensional entities?
Kind of depends on how we define our perceptions doesn't it?

In what way can you perceive the curvature of space except theoretically and the forces that give rise to our perception of a 'spherical' earth except as theoretical concepts?
The 'flat earther' versus 'Spherical earther' argument is a matter of theoretical experimentation and calculation not perceptual certainty. Because of that fact, it is subject to anomalous results and their potential interpretation for or against a 'flat earth' opinion. So....why not? All else being equally unknown, why can’t anomalous results give paradigm shifting surprising conclusions?

or that it is immobile at the centre of the universe

The earth’s movement is relative so this would depend on what you mean by 'center of the universe', where you think that might be and if the earth is there.

Consider... if there is no center to the universe, it having spatially expanded uniformly from every point, then from the perspective of any point, the earths included, one might say that it is at the center of its universe. Or…suppose an anomalous result leads to the eventual conclusion that space is actually uniformly expanding from a central point that the earth just happens to be inhabiting.

that matter does not consist of atoms

What an 'atom' is and consists of, has and is, undergoing theoretical revision. Sooo...in the future we might find that what we currently think of as atoms may not be accurate as to whether or not matter consists of them. The concept of an atom is a mental convenience used in theoretical calculations and considerations. The concept is not a perfect description of reality. So your question is actually a mute one.

or that stars do not generate energy by nuclear fusion?

If the current state of physics is such that it’s at a point where we may have to rethink the structure of natural laws because certain observed phenomena are seemingly incompatible with current theories indicated by published articles of qualified physicists working out of CERN for example then why wouldn't it be possible that some discarded anomalies, who's importance went unrecognized, were able to shed some light on a 'truer' theory of energy production in stars?


Please give specific reasoning.

If not, why do you think that discarded anomalous results could have led to the disproof of the gas laws and kinetic theory or of the theory of evolution?

Not "If not" but rather "who knows".
It depends on what you mean by disproof and of what. Perhaps those anomalies would have led to a reframing of our understanding of relevant phenomena.
Has Newtonian mechanics been proven wrong with the advent of the relativity theories and quantum mechanics? Or is it still relevant in the proper framework?
The gas laws work because, so far they have worked within a margin of error. That doesn't mean they work because we've proven why they have to work that way. Nor does it mean they work because we understand the fundamental recipes underlying those laws which ensures future predictions. They work because they work because they have worked...
But we cannot ensure they will always work nor say if or when they may not work. That is because we have yet to understand -if possible- the fundamental foundations of reality.

 

[setarcos]

What happens when a scientific prediction is fulfilled?

I'd say, in that moment faith becomes belief.


What happens when a scientific prediction isn't fulfilled? Faith becomes disillusionment in the moment. Kind of like when scientists discovered that the predicted behavior of the universes expansion rate didn't and still don't fit the expectations of their theories.

Do you think that it was pure chance that the total eclipse of the Sun on April 8th this year happened as predicted

Lol. Funny you should ask this. Yes, eclipses involve chance. Its impossible to be 100% precise in predictions involving an eclipse.


According to timeanddate.com factors such as the inconsistency of earths rotation, elevation, the fuzziness of the earth and moons exact shapes, the mountains and valleys of the earth and moon not being considered in calculations, the movements of the earth and moon through space not being constant, and not knowing exactly how large the sun actually is, all can have effects upon the precision of the prediction of an eclipse. The further away in time the predictions the more profound the effects might be.
Not to mention unknowns such as a sizable impact from a meteor upon the moon or earth can affect the precision of the prediction. So, again, yes...there is a factor of probability involved. Why? Because there is no known way for us to have complete information concerning said event.

or that it is pure conjecture that an annular eclipse will occur on October 2nd and be visible from the Pacific Ocean?

Lol, again. Yes, it literally is pure conjecture. Why? Because we are literally dealing with incomplete information. What you’re actually talking about is what the probability of that conjecture being proven accurate is down to an acceptable limit of error. Barring some unknown factor becoming involved of course. Like clouds over the viewing area in the Pacific ocean.


Thanks for the replies. This is fun and enlightening.
I'll get to your other posts soon. Ahhhh TIME! There's never enough time!

Stay healthy out there and try not to be mean. Being mean is just ugly.

 

[Audie]

I'd say, in that moment faith becomes belief.


What happens when a scientific prediction isn't fulfilled? Faith becomes disillusionment in the moment. Kind of like when scientists discovered that the predicted behavior of the universes expansion rate didn't and still don't fit the expectations of their theories.

Lol. Funny you should ask this. Yes, eclipses involve chance. Its impossible to be 100% precise in predictions involving an eclipse.


According to timeanddate.com factors such as the inconsistency of earths rotation, elevation, the fuzziness of the earth and moons exact shapes, the mountains and valleys of the earth and moon not being considered in calculations, the movements of the earth and moon through space not being constant, and not knowing exactly how large the sun actually is, all can have effects upon the precision of the prediction of an eclipse. The further away in time the predictions the more profound the effects might be.
Not to mention unknowns such as a sizable impact from a meteor upon the moon or earth can affect the precision of the prediction. So, again, yes...there is a factor of probability involved. Why? Because there is no known way for us to have complete information concerning said event.

Lol, again. Yes, it literally is pure conjecture. Why? Because we are literally dealing with incomplete information. What you’re actually talking about is what the probability of that conjecture being proven accurate is down to an acceptable limit of error. Barring some unknown factor becoming involved of course. Like clouds over the viewing area in the Pacific ocean.


Thanks for the replies. This is fun and enlightening.
I'll get to your other posts soon. Ahhhh TIME! There's never enough time!

Stay healthy out there and try not to be mean. Being mean is just ugly.

So no examples

 

[setarcos]

So no examples

Examples of what specifically are you requesting?

 

[Audie]

Examples of what specifically are you requesting?

Of anything.

@ppp figured it out.

But never mind.

Your posts are too long winded for one reading let
alone two.

 

[ibaconi]

New to "Religious Forums," but here goes: I think what sways me toward creationism is the impossibility of the otherwise. For example, the Big Bang theory, though taught in our schools as fact, is purely and simply not possible. There is a point at which unlikelihood becomes impossibility and in order for the Big Bang to be the case, an entire series of such unlikelihoods, each of which is statistically so unlikely that for the full series of them to be the case, is simply impossible. Boiling things down to evolution we run into a whole new set of unlikelihoods. Evolutionary theory is quite compelling, logically speaking, but if true, the evidence should be everywhere, but it isn't. There is no doubt that species go through adaptation, sometimes significant, but interspeciation is wholly lacking in evidence. Darwins finches, remained finches, and example of interspeciation in the fossil record is nowhere. No matter where you go in studying the development of any creature, you run into a "missing link." Why a "creator" being would go through the eons and magnitude of experimentation in producing what we are, is indeed a mystery, but evolution doesn't solve the problem (so far).

 

[Astrophile]

New to "Religious Forums," but here goes: I think what sways me toward creationism is the impossibility of the otherwise. For example, the Big Bang theory, though taught in our schools as fact, is purely and simply not possible. There is a point at which unlikelihood becomes impossibility and in order for the Big Bang to be the case, an entire series of such unlikelihoods, each of which is statistically so unlikely that for the full series of them to be the case, is simply impossible.

Can you explain in detail what the unlikelihoods are that make the Big Bang theory impossible? Have you tried reading books about cosmology that might be able to resolve your difficulties? By the way, when you say 'the Big Bang theory' ... is ... taught in our schools as fact', do you mean that it is taught as fact now, or that it was taught as fact when you were at school?

 

[Audie]

New to "Religious Forums," but here goes: I think what sways me toward creationism is the impossibility of the otherwise. For example, the Big Bang theory, though taught in our schools as fact, is purely and simply not possible. There is a point at which unlikelihood becomes impossibility and in order for the Big Bang to be the case, an entire series of such unlikelihoods, each of which is statistically so unlikely that for the full series of them to be the case, is simply impossible. Boiling things down to evolution we run into a whole new set of unlikelihoods. Evolutionary theory is quite compelling, logically speaking, but if true, the evidence should be everywhere, but it isn't. There is no doubt that species go through adaptation, sometimes significant, but interspeciation is wholly lacking in evidence. Darwins finches, remained finches, and example of interspeciation in the fossil record is nowhere. No matter where you go in studying the development of any creature, you run into a "missing link." Why a "creator" being would go through the eons and magnitude of experimentation in producing what we are, is indeed a mystery, but evolution doesn't solve the problem (so far).

Thats a lot of territory, but here goes.

In science, “ it’s a fact that this is my data” is
about the only reference to “fact”.

Also, a fact, and a theory are completely
different things. One can no more be the other
than a cow can be a turtle.

We would never teach such ignorant nonsense in
Hong Kong.
Are you SURE American schools are really that bad?

Regsrdlless, even if pop press and bad schools get things wrong,
it has nothing to do with the quality of research that is done and
validity of theories.

 

[Pogo]

New to "Religious Forums," but here goes: I think what sways me toward creationism is the impossibility of the otherwise. For example, the Big Bang theory, though taught in our schools as fact, is purely and simply not possible. There is a point at which unlikelihood becomes impossibility and in order for the Big Bang to be the case, an entire series of such unlikelihoods, each of which is statistically so unlikely that for the full series of them to be the case, is simply impossible. Boiling things down to evolution we run into a whole new set of unlikelihoods. Evolutionary theory is quite compelling, logically speaking, but if true, the evidence should be everywhere, but it isn't. There is no doubt that species go through adaptation, sometimes significant, but interspeciation is wholly lacking in evidence. Darwins finches, remained finches, and example of interspeciation in the fossil record is nowhere. No matter where you go in studying the development of any creature, you run into a "missing link." Why a "creator" being would go through the eons and magnitude of experimentation in producing what we are, is indeed a mystery, but evolution doesn't solve the problem (so far).

The scientific community will be more than eager to see your reasoning and mathematics of probability if you could be so kind as to write them down in some sort of generally recognizable format. Be forewarned that some of the ideas you are presenting even here are misunderstandings of the corpus of knowledge. That said, we here may well be willing to help you refine your presentation if you are actually of an evidential and logical bent in your analyses of data.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is a point at which unlikelihood becomes impossibility and in order for the Big Bang to be the case, an entire series of such unlikelihoods, each of which is statistically so unlikely that for the full series of them to be the case, is simply impossible.

I'm soooo interested in hearing specifics about these mysterious series of unlikelihoods, how you determined what these events are, what their individual probabilities are and how every actual physicist in the world apparently missed them all.

Boiling things down to evolution we run into a whole new set of unlikelihoods.

Same as above.

Evolutionary theory is quite compelling, logically speaking, but if true, the evidence should be everywhere, but it isn't.

Except that it is. But you might not notice if you insist on keeping your head firmly lodged in the ground, ostrich style.

There is no doubt that species go through adaptation, sometimes significant, but interspeciation is wholly lacking in evidence.

"interspeciation"? what's that? My best guess would be that you are about the argue a strawman.

Darwins finches, remained finches, and example of interspeciation in the fossil record is nowhere.

HA! Nailed it. There's the strawman.
Yes, finches remain fiches. Every X remains X. Anything other would falsify evolution. Actual evolution - not the strawman in your head.

Humans remain apes, they remain mammals, they remain chordates, etc.
Speciation is a vertical process resulting in subspecies. Species never outgrow their ancestry.

No matter where you go in studying the development of any creature, you run into a "missing link."

Yeah. It's like you have fossil A and then descendent fossil C and there's that "missing link" in between.
And then you find fossil B and uh-oh... now you have 2 missing links: one between A and B and another between B and C.

Also: you are confusing evolutionary history with the process of evolution itself, off course.
It's like if you don't have any pictures of yourself from age 10 to 20. That doesn't mean you are not aging.

Why a "creator" being would go through the eons and magnitude of experimentation in producing what we are, is indeed a mystery,

Not if... and get this.... there is no such a creator and only the natural process...

but evolution doesn't solve the problem (so far).

Evolution provides independently verifiable explanation which is more then sufficient to account for the diversity of life we see on this planet.
There's no need to arbitrarily inject any "mystery" in there.

 

[Pogo]

Can you explain in detail what the unlikelihoods are that make the Big Bang theory impossible? Have you tried reading books about cosmology that might be able to resolve your difficulties? By the way, when you say 'the Big Bang theory' ... is ... taught in our schools as fact', do you mean that it is taught as fact now, or that it was taught as fact when you were at school?

Was or is the BBT ever taught as fact?, Maybe I am not old enough but I can't remember ever hearing that theories were facts.