h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What about them? They're not creationists in the usual sense of the term, certainly not in the way I'm using it.

You seem to have strayed a little from the evidence of creationism vs evolution. Uncomfortable territory for you?

Gif

gif,
> You seem to have strayed a little from the evidence of creationism vs evolution.

We've all got our evidence ..
I don't have to prove anything to anyone .. I have GOD to do that for me ..

If He hasn't "given" you evidence yet, I'm sure that there's some reason for it
Perhaps you don't want it, perhaps something is controlling you, effectively stopping you from "seeing" it ..

In any case, you can theorise as much as you like about what happened billions of years ago, but it doesn't alter my perspective on the origin of the universe.
I'm fortunate to have had a fairly good education, and I feel that I have a balanced view of the world, taking in to account various scientific disciplines.
I don't consider human beings infallible or even reliable, so why should I worship "scientific knowledge" ?

No, I'll decide for myself thankyou, what I find credible/sensible and what I find arrogant and blind conclusions.

Peace

<>

apart from your self who keeps telling us he knows what god wants

you arrogant



go on yikes this, lets see your true colours

Hi Warner,

>perhaps something is controlling you, effectively stopping you from "seeing" it ..

Correct. That thing is called my mind, and by using it I fail to see any reason to go for a religious view of the origin of the Universe.

The 'theorising' that geologists have done about the Earth billions of years ago enable them to make testable predictions. So far, those have always come out right. Why should that be, unless the theories are right? I ask again - can you use your beliefs to make any testable predictions (other than trivial ones that would be true whether your beliefs are correct or not)?

>I don't consider human beings infallible or even reliable,

Except when they claim to hear God talking to them. Then you sometimes consider them infallible - and by implication, you think you can infallibly tell which 'prophets' are really hearing God and which are not.

Gif

gif
> The 'theorising' that geologists have done about the Earth billions of years ago enable them to make testable predictions

That doesn't make much sense to me ..
I thought a prediction was about the future .. yes, we can test that by seeing if its right when we come to it ..
To test if you're right about billions of years ago is nonsense, unless you think we can invent some sort of time machine
Man-made theories .. and that's all they'll ever be.

Yes .. some people are more reliable than others .. some people have a track-record of telling the truth, and practise what they preach.

Others (including me, sadly), do not. When it comes to making controversial statements about the truth of our existence, I know who I trust

You're free to follow whoever you wish.

Peace

A prediction can be about the past too. All you have to do is say in advance (pre-dict) what you will find. One can make predictions about fossils or geological stuff.

toybox
I wouldn't say that it's a prediction as such ..
You can make a theory about fossils

Its interesting, but not at all conclusive, IMO
Particularly when you speak about billions of years ago

It's a theory!!
I think we have to speak to top-scientists who believe in God, as well as those that don't. That gives us a better perspective about paleontology.
Of course, believers aren't that interested in making theories about billions of years ago, because God maintains the world as far as they're concerned, and they have no wish to "compete" with God Almighty as atheist biologists apparently have!

It's simple .. it depends which 'top scientist' you ask, what answer you get about the origin of life.

Peace

Ah no, in scientific context, 'theory' has already a meaning, which is a set of laws, principles, equations and whatnot which allow one to make correct predictions about what the theory is dealing with. Like the theory of gravity, which allows you to predict where a cannonball will fall when you know in what direction and at what speed it is shot. Or Number theory in maths, which allows you to find out all kind of wonderful stuff such as whether lcms and gcds exist in the land of gaussian integers (and yes, they do).

What you seem to mean here by 'theory' (but I may have misunderstood) should probably be best replaced with 'hypothesis'. You can make hypotheses about fossils, and formulate possible answers according to paleontological theories, and then experiment to test whether the answer is correct or not.

As to believers who don't want to bother about what happened billions of years ago: it's their loss really, it's full of fascinating stuff. Of course there is no compulsion for everybody to be interested in *everything*, but they shouldn't dismiss it beforehand just because they are believers. (That is, even when one believes it is all god's work it is interesting. I personally find it even more mind-boggling without any supernatural explanation, but that's a personal view.)

toybox
> even when one believes it is all god's work it is interesting

Yes, it is. Regards theory and hypothesis, makes sense.

That doesn't imply that all scientific theories are correct though, does it ..

Hi Warner,

To build on what Toybox has said, let me give you a specific example (already mentioned in this thread).

According to the theory of evolution, land reptiles evolved from fish. That means that something physically intermediate between the two must have existed. It must have lived sometime prior to the first land vertebrates appearing in the fossil record (but after the first marine vertebrates). And it seems reasonable to conclude it lived in shallow coastal areas or swamps.

So a bunch of paleontologists went looking in rocks formed at that time (according to standard, non-creationist geology) under those conditions, and found exactly that - the fossils now classed as Tiktaalik: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Creationism should be able to make a much easier-to-prove prediction: since all species were created at once, there should be no pattern to fossils. We should find fossil mammals (like rabbits) even in the earliest rocks (the Precambrian). Many have looked - none have yet found them, or anything similar. Why is that?

So you see, the prediction is about what we *will* find (in the future), but based on (and therefore testing) assumptions *about* the past.

As to talking to religious paleontologists - they say much the same as the non-religious paleontologists. Why, then, would you disagree with both of them?

Gif

Usually, I think scientists start calling them 'theories' when they are pretty well accepted and tested. Of course they may still turn out to be inaccurate afterwards (like Newtonian gravity, which is a pretty good approximation in everyday life, but not so much for particles at a very high speed). I would expect it to be quite rare that a theory gets completely discarded, and even more so in our modern times (as compared to 12th Century science, say), because we have a better idea regarding what should be called a theory and what should be a hypothesis.

(A hypothesis? Or an hypothesis?)

Hi Warner,



>That doesn't imply that all scientific theories are correct though, does it ..

No indeed. But to be a 'theory' rather than a 'hypothesis', it must have been tested and survived.

To decide how confident we can be about any given theory, we would need to look at how tough those tests have been.

Gif

example

warner

can you tell me when ramadan is this year please???

Hi TB,

Ah, the important questions:

>(A hypothesis? Or an hypothesis?)

My understanding is 'a hypothesis'. It goes on pronunciation; 'hypothesis' has a vocalised 'h', so it doesn't sound like it starts with a vowel.

Of course, by analogy with morality, the religious will no doubt tell us that if English doesn't come from God, all it's laws are arbitrary and there can be no right or wrong answers...

Gif

A hypothesis sounds better indeed. Thanks

Actually it is a good question: we know that all languages were created as a divine punishment because of Babel, but did god devise each one separately with all the grammar and pronunciation and exceptions and so on, or... or I don't know what else, really?

warner is understandably getting mixed up with language,

after all god does not understand english, thats why you have to learn arabic to pray propperly

warner is right that we can't know but all we have is best guess,

BUT!

those guesses are tested against reality and if they consistanly conform to reality we can say they are accurate

SO

warner

a theory is a guess that when tested conisitantly conforms to reality

any guesses about scripture you would like to make to show us the error of our ways???

gif
I'm not interested in "creationism" ..

> Creationism should be able to make a much easier-to-prove prediction: since all species were created at once, there should be
> no pattern to fossils

I don't claim to know how God created the universe .. all I know is that He did

If you want to start arguing with "literal" interpretations of scripture, then fine, but that doesn't change MY reality. I'm very satified with scriptural accounts .. it doesn't strictly rule out ANY options unless you want it to.

Well, the only option that IS ruled out is that the universe has no creator.

I am, therefore I am. Everything has a reason, including the principal of evolution!!

Peace

<>

then why do you attack the people who study the evidence left behind by the creation of the universe and come up with working models of what realy happend???

or is all this evidence a lie planted by god as a test???