What's purpose to lable this DIR"Evolution Vs. Creationism"

[Godobeyer]

In the broadest of terms I suppose. However implimentation is often different. Lastly evolution doesn't actually give creedence or mind to creationism in study since it isn't a science. But people here still like to discuss things.

Evolution does not oppose Creationism in origin of life, that's top thing.

What the terms they oppose each others ?

 

[Kirran]

So you in theory could accept evolution as the means by which animals, plants, bacteria etc have reached thheir current forms after their initial creation as a common ancestor billions of years ago by your understanding of God? You just don't do so?

 

[Skwim]

The criticism is fair. But here the disagreement is whether
1) An isolated observational fact on its own lonely self has a greater likelihood of being true
than
2) An entire set of well-established observational facts that are connected in a predictive and explanatorily powerful logical mesh (a theory).

Sorry. I must have missed the post where you presented this issue.

So we're dealing with the likelihood of truth. Okay, but first of all, lets do away with all the bias and irrelevancies and properly phrase your "disagreement."

1) An isolated observational fact has a greater likelihood of being true
than
2) A set of observational facts that are connected in a predictive and explanatorily powerful theory
​

Because the strength of the set of facts is predicated on what it does rather than what it is, one first has to show why a theory would necessarily lend strength to the truth of the set of facts. Honestly, because a theory is a tenuous interpretation, which admits to revision, I fail to see how it might impact the truthfulness of a set of facts at all. And even if one does feel "what it is" is a salient determinant it would have to be shown why the connectedness of the facts itself impacts the truthfulness of the set. So, I'm going with number 1. And individual fact has a better chance of being true than does a set of facts. Kind of a parsimony thing as well.

However in the expanding boundaries of this epistemic loom (the research labs) we have to deal with observations that are still isolated, not interconnected and bumbling around tugging and pulling in contradictory directions. There the "facts" do not look very "facty" to us researchers. Quarreling over contrary and rebellious facts is the life of researchers.

While the relationship of various facts may be contentious, by its very definition, "fact" admits no quarrel. Want to question and attack the basis of a fact? Go right ahead, but unless one can show that the indisputiability of a fact is flawed or significantly unsound there is no reason to dethrone its assertion from its status as fact. One is perforced required to accept it as 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." (Stephen Jay Gould's definition.) So any quarreling going on would be over the particulars that happen to support a fact, and not the fact itself.


.

 

[sayak83]

The goal of creationism is about origin of life/creation.
The goal of evolution is explain how same species changed in time became variation .had nothing to do with origin of life.

False. The goal of evolution is to explain how new species and new kinds of animals and plants emerged from older species and older kinds of animals. It explains how simple single-celled life became multicellular animals and plants, it explains how some fish evolved in amphibians, some amphibians evolved into reptiles, some reptiles evolved into dinosaurs and mammals, some dinosaurs evolved into birds etc.

Only the origin of very very simple single-celled life from non-living chemicals of ancient earth is outside the theory of evolution. The emergence of all other kinds of life from the single celled life of ancient earth is explained by the theory of evolution.

 

[sayak83]

Sorry. I must have missed the post where you presented this issue.

So we're dealing with the likelihood of truth. Okay, but first of all, lets do away with all the bias and irrelevancies and properly phrase your "disagreement."

1) An isolated observational fact has a greater likelihood of being true
than
2) A set of observational facts that are connected in a predictive and explanatorily powerful theory
​

Because the strength of the set of facts is predicated on what it does rather than what it is, one first has to show why a theory would necessarily lend strength to the truth of the set of facts. Honestly, because a theory is a tenuous interpretation, which admits to revision, I fail to see how it might impact the truthfulness of a set of facts at all. And even if one does feel "what it is" is a salient determinant it would have to be shown why the connectedness of the facts itself impacts the truthfulness of the set. So, I'm going with number 1. And individual fact has a better chance of being true than does a set of facts. Kind of a parsimony thing as well.



While the relationship of various facts may be contentious, by its very definition, "fact" admits no quarrel. Want to question and attack the basis of a fact? Go right ahead, but unless one can show that the indisputiability of a fact is flawed or significantly unsound there is no reason to dethrone its assertion from its status as fact. One is perforced required to accept it as 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." (Stephen Jay Gould's definition.) So any quarreling going on would be over the particulars that happen to support a fact, and not the fact itself.


.

The question is whether a fact becomes a fact because its part of a successful theory...

 

[Skwim]

The question is whether a fact becomes a fact because its part of a successful theory...

A different question for sure, but . . . . .
Have you ever seen a fact that was established just because it was part of a successful theory? I sure haven't.


.

 

[sayak83]

A different question for sure, but . . . . .
Have you ever seen a fact that was established just because it was part of a successful theory? I sure haven't.


.

How about the fact that the earth revolves around the sun? I am sure it was established as fact much before people went to space to observe this directly? It was first a theory and then became fact somewhere down the line. .

The problem of course is that the word fact is rarely used in scientific literature. The distinction there is between observational data and theory. But of course observational data is itself dependent on the experiment conducted and that is theory driven (otherwise we have GIGO). Usually when a new field opens up, one says:- "This new field is somewhat similar to these older fields of study. So lets tentatively extrapolate the theory of those older fields, conduct some experiments based on these tentative hypothesis and see if anything intelligible comes out." Then using the data we pick the "best-fit" hypothesis and modify the hypothesis somewhat and then again conduct a new series of observations based in the new modified hypothesis. Another set of data comes out, maybe more coherent than the first one. Based on this we modify the hypothesis somewhat more...and so on. Eventually both the sets of observational data and the hypothesis converge. The data becomes complete and consistent and the final hypothesis predicts data that matches with previous observations/experiments. Thus the hypothesis becomes theory and the data set becomes fact. The confidence on the data and the confidence on the theory are co-dependent.

After all why would you roll balls of various weight down an inclined plane unless you have a hypothesis that the long held "fact"
that lighter things fall slower than heavier ones is not quite correct? And why would anyone measure the speed of light unless one had a hypothesis that light is a kind of thing that could have speed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_experiments

 

[Skwim]

How about the fact that the earth revolves around the sun? I am sure it was established as fact much before people went to space to observe this directly? It was first a theory and then became fact somewhere down the line. .

The problem of course is that the word fact is rarely used in scientific literature. The distinction there is between observational data and theory. But of course observational data is itself dependent on the experiment conducted and that is theory driven (otherwise we have GIGO). Usually when a new field opens up, one says:- "This new field is somewhat similar to these older fields of study. So lets tentatively extrapolate the theory of those older fields, conduct some experiments based on these tentative hypothesis and see if anything intelligible comes out." Then using the data we pick the "best-fit" hypothesis and modify the hypothesis somewhat and then again conduct a new series of observations based in the new modified hypothesis. Another set of data comes out, maybe more coherent than the first one. Based on this we modify the hypothesis somewhat more...and so on. Eventually both the sets of observational data and the hypothesis converge. The data becomes complete and consistent and the final hypothesis predicts data that matches with previous observations/experiments. Thus the hypothesis becomes theory and the data set becomes fact. The confidence on the data and the confidence on the theory are co-dependent.

After all why would you roll balls of various weight down an inclined plane unless you have a hypothesis that the long held "fact"
that lighter things fall slower than heavier ones is not quite correct? And why would anyone measure the speed of light unless one had a hypothesis that light is a kind of thing that could have speed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_experiments

You're quite right. What threw me was your use of "part." Theories themselves, not their parts, are upgraded to fact.


.

 

[Godobeyer]

So you in theory could accept evolution as the means by which animals, plants, bacteria etc have reached thheir current forms after their initial creation as a common ancestor billions of years ago by your understanding of God? You just don't do so?

No, I accept it as made variations in same specie, not change of kind. Nor reference to origin of life.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Evolution does not oppose Creationism in origin of life, that's top thing.

What the terms they oppose each others ?

A part of the theory of evolution is a sub-theory called abiogensis. That does however go to a stark contrast to creationism.

 

[Quintessence]

Hmm. This is an issue worth some consideration on the administrative side. If you were to rename this forum, what would you rename it to?

(to clarify, this forum is not a DIR)

 

[Godobeyer]

A part of the theory of evolution is a sub-theory called abiogensis. That does however go to a stark contrast to creationism.

Now I am confused, so evolusptionists whom said evolution had nothing to with origin of life are losing or wrong ?

 

[Godobeyer]

Hmm. This is an issue worth some consideration on the administrative side. If you were to rename this forum, what would you rename it to?

(to clarify, this forum is not a DIR)

Its was just curious question , not suggestion to change name

I informed about this forum is not DIR

I thought every section called DIR, sorry its my bad!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Now I am confused, so evolusptionists whom said evolution had nothing to with origin of life are losing or wrong ?

I dislike people who say that evolution has nothing to do with abiogensis or the origin of life. It most definitely falls under the far more vast umbrella of evolution. What they mean to say is that even if that part of the theory was wrong it would make the whole theory wrong. The change over time as we have observed and have evidence for stands regardless of any failings of abiogenisis. Of which there are few to mention. The issue is mostly having to come from a point where smoking gun evidence may be impossible to find but that doesn't meant good evidence isn't there. The same processes of evolution are found in abiogenisis and to say they have nothing to do with each other is simply wrong. It is generally assumed within the context of evolution that some form of abiogensis occurred but it isn't necessary to the study of any life since.

 

[Kirran]

No, I accept it as made variations in same specie, not change of kind. Nor reference to origin of life.

Yes, the origins of life are a separate issue.

OK, fair enough. So you reject science.

 

[Godobeyer]

Yes, the origins of life are a separate issue.

OK, fair enough. So you reject science.

How I reject science,please no !
Should I go to jail because of this guilty decision

Btw
Its does not proven change of kind !

 

[sayak83]

I dislike people who say that evolution has nothing to do with abiogensis or the origin of life. It most definitely falls under the far more vast umbrella of evolution. What they mean to say is that even if that part of the theory was wrong it would make the whole theory wrong. The change over time as we have observed and have evidence for stands regardless of any failings of abiogenisis. Of which there are few to mention. The issue is mostly having to come from a point where smoking gun evidence may be impossible to find but that doesn't meant good evidence isn't there. The same processes of evolution are found in abiogenisis and to say they have nothing to do with each other is simply wrong. It is generally assumed within the context of evolution that some form of abiogensis occurred but it isn't necessary to the study of any life since.

The distinction is not ad hoc. Early stages of abiogenesis has more to do with non-equilibrium thermodynamics, catalyst induced chemical kinetics and molecular dynamics of organic macromolecules in auto-catalytic reaction chains than with evolution. Once RNA molecule was inducted into the system and became an early precursor of heredity, one could talk about evolution proper.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The distinction is not ad hoc. Early stages of abiogenesis has more to do with non-equilibrium thermodynamics, catalyst induced chemical kinetics and molecular dynamics of organic macromolecules in auto-catalytic reaction chains than with evolution. Once RNA molecule was inducted into the system and became an early precursor of heredity, one could talk about evolution proper.

I agree but to say they are totally distinct or to have no relation would be a falsehood. I understand the danger in bringing up that notion in debate as it is easily misconstrued.

 

[Skwim]

A part of the theory of evolution is a sub-theory called abiogensis..

No it is not. Evolution does not address origins, and in particular abiogenesis, at all. Why? because evolution only deals with living matter, life. Abiogenesis, whatever the process may be, only leads up to life. Once life emerges from the process it would be subject to evolutionary study, but before that the chemical/electro-chemical reactions, those comprising the origins of life, fail to meet the criteria of living matter and the purview of evolution.

I dislike people who say that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or the origin of life.

Truly an odd reason to dislike anyone, but whatever.

It most definitely falls under the far more vast umbrella of evolution.

Amusing, but wrong.


.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No it is not. Evolution does not address origins at all.


.

edited .Does the theory of evolution require an explanation of origins? No? Does it overlap and connect? Of course it does. Common ancestry, a primary claim of evolution, is that all life has a common ancestor. That common ancestor has everything to do with the origin of life. I am not saying that evolution itself in common practice of study such as the way the evolution of man or diseases touches on the origin of life but it most certainly does within the fields of the study of early and beginning life.