Star Wobble Theory
Craig Bell
"The discovery and chemical make up of planets outside the solar system
under the 'star wobble' theory and the methods used to test them."
First of all, are you referring to this "theory" as an evolutionary
fact/theory that is contrary to a literal understanding of the bible? If so,
what are the findings that are conflicting?
Here is the criteria to test the theory's validity
1. How was the data gathered/are the methods reliable/valid?
2. How was the data analysed, ie hypo-deductive/factor
analysis/exploratory..
3. What is the orientation of the reasearcher/institution.
4. How was the hypothesis formed/a priori/abduction...
5. Do the theoretical conclusion logically follow from the
presises/hypothesis...
6. Does the thoery fit the world better than anyother theory..
Brian Tozer
news:9ecf99$god$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> For Matthew - From Craig
>
> "The discovery and chemical make up of planets outside the solar system
> under the 'star wobble' theory and the methods used to test them."
>
> First of all, are you referring to this "theory" as an evolutionary
> fact/theory that is contrary to a literal understanding of the bible? If
so,
> what are the findings that are conflicting?
What possible connection could there be between cosmology and evolution?
Please get an education before you make yourself look even more ludicrous.
Brian Tozer
Craig Bell
> What possible connection could there be between cosmology and evolution?
> Please get an education before you make yourself look even more ludicrous.
>
Brian, this is a post in reply to Matthew's about tersting scientific
theory.
Go back and read the thread in "Reconciling faith and reason" and maybe you
will understand.
Until then - no more shooting from the hip please.
Craig.
Matthew Healey
Craig Bell wrote:
>
> For Matthew - From Craig
>
> "The discovery and chemical make up of planets outside the solar system
> under the 'star wobble' theory and the methods used to test them."
I choose an example that uses induction/inference, which you dispute as
being valid methods of science. Since this is (one way) how evolutionary
hypotheses are constructed I reason you would probably disagree with
this method of planet finding. Do you?? If you dont then what in science
apart from evolution do you disagree with??
> First of all, are you referring to this "theory" as an evolutionary
> fact/theory that is contrary to a literal understanding of the bible? If so,
> what are the findings that are conflictin
Ahhh so what you're suggesting is you're only interested in slating an
approach if it conflicts with the bible. It doesn't matter if the method
used is identical to other thoeries you accept, if it conflicts with the
bible you'll disagree straight away. How again would this be logical??
(please correct me if I have misrepresented your position)
> Here is the criteria to test the theory's validity
>
> 1. How was the data gathered/are the methods reliable/valid?
> 2. How was the data analysed, ie hypo-deductive/factor
> analysis/exploratory..
> 3. What is the orientation of the reasearcher/institution.
> 4. How was the hypothesis formed/a priori/abduction...
> 5. Do the theoretical conclusion logically follow from the
> presises/hypothesis...
> 6. Does the thoery fit the world better than anyother theory..
I would hope you could perhaps provide some criterior yourself for 'good
science', since you are very sure about what is bad science.
matt
:p
Craig Bell
>
> Ahhh so what you're suggesting is you're only interested in slating an
> approach if it conflicts with the bible. It doesn't matter if the method
> used is identical to other thoeries you accept, if it conflicts with the
> bible you'll disagree straight away. How again would this be logical??
> (please correct me if I have misrepresented your position)
>
That's really my idea, yes. Because I believe the bible and because heaven
and hell are issues that spring out from that, I don't want people to miss
out on the truth because they are blinded by false science. I don't really
care about spending needless hours over semantics, I just want to see Jesus
glorified.
Sorry if I disappoint you.
Allistar Melville
A question for you: Why do you believe the Bible?
Allistar.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Allistar Melville (BSc) Home: alli...@ihug.co.nz \_
Software Developer Work: alli...@focussoft.co.nz </'
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND /)
(/`
"Science built the Academy, superstition the inquisition."
[Robert G. Ingersoll]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Healey
Glorify Jesus by all means...goodonya :)
But DONT misrepresent science. Don't claim evolution is 'false science'
given that we have just discussed that your criterior for false science
also applies to theories you accept. Dont mislead people into thinking
you reject evolution based on scientific criterior when in fact you
reject science based on religious dogma. These are the tactics of Ken
Ham and his ilk. This is dishonest.
Once more to drive the point home....
If you reject evolution because it conflicts with religious dogma then
be honest enough to admit it. Don't hide behind uninformed
interpretations of science and scientific method.
matt
:p
Craig Bell
Matthew Healey <md...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3B09F101...@student.canterbury.ac.nz...
>
>
> Craig Bell wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Ahhh so what you're suggesting is you're only interested in slating an
> > > approach if it conflicts with the bible. It doesn't matter if the
method
> > > used is identical to other thoeries you accept, if it conflicts with
the
> > > bible you'll disagree straight away. How again would this be logical??
> > > (please correct me if I have misrepresented your position)
> > >
> >
> > That's really my idea, yes. Because I believe the bible and because
heaven
> > and hell are issues that spring out from that, I don't want people to
miss
> > out on the truth because they are blinded by false science. I don't
really
> > care about spending needless hours over semantics, I just want to see
Jesus
> > glorified.
> > Sorry if I disappoint you.
>
> Glorify Jesus by all means...goodonya :)
>
> But DONT misrepresent science. Don't claim evolution is 'false science'
> given that we have just discussed that your criterior for false science
> also applies to theories you accept.
YES that is exactly what I am saying. The criteria is the same for both. I
accept that belief in the bible is based on assumptions that you can't test.
That is what I have been saying all along. Along with that, there is not one
shred of evidence that cannot be integrated into a literalist view of
biblical history. I can't prove that my views are right, but they fit in
with the same validity as yours.
> Dont mislead people into thinking
> you reject evolution based on scientific criterior when in fact you
> reject science based on religious dogma. These are the tactics of Ken
> Ham and his ilk. This is dishonest.
I am not rejecting it (evolutionary theory) based on scientific criteria, I
reject it because it has as many (if not more) assumtions and leaps of faith
that belief in the bible has.
I do not reject science. I just realise that almost everything is based on
assumptions that cannot be fully tested.
> Once more to drive the point home....
>
> If you reject evolution because it conflicts with religious dogma then
> be honest enough to admit it. Don't hide behind uninformed
> interpretations of science and scientific method.
Of course I "admit" that. I have said that from the beginning. Evolution and
biblical Christianity cannot marry - contrary to what some believe. If you
can't accept what the bible says in one place, why should you believe it
anywhere else?
I am aware that Science has assumptions that can't be proved in many cases.
So lets go with your star wobble and I'll show you what I mean.
Craig Bell
Because it answers the questions that I most want to know.
Matthew Healey
Craig Bell wrote:
> >
> > But DONT misrepresent science. Don't claim evolution is 'false science'
> > given that we have just discussed that your criterior for false science
> > also applies to theories you accept.
>
> YES that is exactly what I am saying.
Please stop changing your position, its very hard to keep track. This
discussion stems from you claiming that evo. should be rejected cos its
assumptions are untestable. I agree that ultimately 'scientific realism'
is assumed but this isn't the same as saying induction/inference can't
be tested. The first claim about scientific realism has implications for
ALL science. Either reject its methods in general and reject all science
or shut up about evo. thoery being untrue becuase of this. Because your
argument applies to science I'm sure you don't want to throw away.
> The criteria is the same for both. I
> accept that belief in the bible is based on assumptions that you can't test.
metaphysical claims are like that. Scientific claims can be tested (even
though we can't directly observe many things we can use hypotheses to
generate predictions that can be tested <- reject this at your peril).
> That is what I have been saying all along. Along with that, there is not one
> shred of evidence that cannot be integrated into a literalist view of
> biblical history.
as I've said before if you start from a position of knowing what your
theory will be you will easily find confirming evidence in the world.
This would be considered bad science. Evolutionary theory doesn't work
like this..if researchers/scientists do this then they to are guilty of
bad science.
> I can't prove that my views are right, but they fit in
> with the same validity as yours.
You can't prove your views by appeals to the world. Science can prove
its claims in regard the world (again assuming scientific realism is
roughly correct)
>
> > Dont mislead people into thinking
> > you reject evolution based on scientific criterior when in fact you
> > reject science based on religious dogma. These are the tactics of Ken
> > Ham and his ilk. This is dishonest.
>
> I am not rejecting it (evolutionary theory) based on scientific criteria, I
> reject it because it has as many (if not more) assumtions and leaps of faith
> that belief in the bible has.
ok I looking forward to hearing what these are....
(please don't mention abiogenesis/macromicro evo since these the first
isn't strictly the domain of evo. thoery and the second is a creationist
invention, also avoid appeals to missing links etc and examples of bad
science that have since been debunked. since these are determined by
scientific criterior and you have already said that your criticisms
aren't based in science)
> I do not reject science. I just realise that almost everything is based on
> assumptions that cannot be fully tested.
yes..scientific realism....you can't have it both ways either realism
holds and thus the world CAN be examine by science (including historical
inference/induction) or its false and science goes out the door.
> > Once more to drive the point home....
> >
> > If you reject evolution because it conflicts with religious dogma then
> > be honest enough to admit it. Don't hide behind uninformed
> > interpretations of science and scientific method.
>
> Of course I "admit" that. I have said that from the beginning.
No you've didnt. You've been slating evo. cos (you claim) it can't be
tested. Which to be frank shows your ignorance. I've tried to show that
if you accept evo. can't be tested you have to accept that most of
science can't be tested. Therefore if evo. theory is incorrect so are
many other theories in science.
SNIP
> I am aware that Science has assumptions that can't be proved in many cases.
> So lets go with your star wobble and I'll show you what I mean.
by all means....
matt
:p
Allistar Melville
How do you know it answers those questions correctly?
Craig Bell
> No you've didnt. You've been slating evo. cos (you claim) it can't be
> tested. Which to be frank shows your ignorance. I've tried to show that
> if you accept evo. can't be tested you have to accept that most of
> science can't be tested. Therefore if evo. theory is incorrect so are
> many other theories in science.
>
The assumptions that Evolution makes are different from other assumptions
because they are assuming knowledge of information"in the past" in order to
substantiate it's findings. Mathematical science does not make assumptions
about the past because it is testing phenomena that is present and
observable now. It is the science that makes assumptions about conditions in
the past which are impossible to test, that is bad science. Also Science
which makes conclusions about astonomy is the same because at present it is
not possible to test and observe whether the theory is actually true.
Still waiting for some star wobble info.
Matthew Healey
Craig Bell wrote:
>
> > No you've didnt. You've been slating evo. cos (you claim) it can't be
> > tested. Which to be frank shows your ignorance. I've tried to show that
> > if you accept evo. can't be tested you have to accept that most of
> > science can't be tested. Therefore if evo. theory is incorrect so are
> > many other theories in science.
> >
>
> The assumptions that Evolution makes are different from other assumptions
> because they are assuming knowledge of information"in the past" in order to
> substantiate it's findings.
As I mentioned before you need to examine scientific method a bit more.
Bootstrap and inferential methods are not confined to evo. theory. You
(as you've noted) reject most of astronomy/astrophysics, also you then
have to reject most of geology/paleontology/anthropology etc since they
use similar methods.
> Mathematical science does not make assumptions
> about the past because it is testing phenomena that is present and
> observable now.
Yes but maths involves 'analytic propositions' where the concept of the
predicate is contained in the concept of the subject. There are problems
with this, since maths/geometry assumes a number of axioms that can't be
show to be true from within the system itself, this is a form of Godels
theorem.
The science we are discussing involves synthetic propositions, in
particular synthetic a priori propositions (for evo theory this is true
in some cases) This is problematic but at the end of the day we are
interested in theories that describe the world...if they fit the world
better than any other testable theory (yes evo. is testable...if you
insist on claiming it isn't then that just shows your own lack of
reading on the topic) then we accept them untill a better testable
theory comes along. If you have a better theory (ie the bible) then
present it in a form that can make predicitions about phenomenon in the
world and we'll test it and see how robust it is.
>It is the science that makes assumptions about conditions in
> the past which are impossible to test, that is bad science.
in fact this pretty much sums up MOST of science. Therefore do you
reject MOST science. Obviously you accept maths and other analytic
statements (even though most can be reduced to tautologies)
> Also Science
> which makes conclusions about astonomy is the same because at present it is
> not possible to test and observe whether the theory is actually true.
I agree but this is different than saying 'they are untestable'. Much of
what we thought 500 years ago wasn't testable. That didn't mean we
weren't one day (ie now) able to test these things....Same with theories
today using proven scientific methods, we can make predicitions about
phenomenon, some of these are currently unable to be conclusively tested
(if in fact there is such a thing in science). But if no one offers a
competing theory then all we can do is wait and hope time and effort
will one day give the answer. What you want to do is introduce the 'god
of the gaps', which means..'we can't yet satisfactorily explain it
therefore goddidit.'
> Still waiting for some star wobble info.
ummm perhaps we have crossed wires here...you were going to show what is
wrong with such a theory...
I tentatively accept this method of identifying distant planets since
there is no competing method of recognising them...you reject it because
it can't yet be (conclusively?) decided if the phenomenon observed are
actually planets (even though spectroscopy (sp?) suggests that what is
being observed has an atmosphere). And there aren't very many things in
the universe that have atmospheres. You may think that making inferences
and then predicitions from them is bad..if they are 'ad hoc' then I
agree but most are 'post hoc', though even this is problematic cos it
sometimes leads to 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' which is a fallacy that
suggests that, because one event happens after another then it happens
because of it. See....in science nothing is certain or goes
unquestioned...what was that you were saying about dogma in science and
evo. as an unquestioned religion ;)
matt
:p
John Fulton
<clar...@crosswinds.net> writes:
:>
:>
:>> No you've didnt. You've been slating evo. cos (you claim) it can't be
I don't think that evolution makes any assumptions at all. There are a set of
observations that have been made. The ones by Darwin were at the Galapagos
Islands in the Pacific Ocean.
From these observations he made a hypothesis which seemed to explain what he
has seen. This hypothesis is the "survival of the fittest" - in other words
evolution.
There have been observations made since his time that also tend to suggest the
same explanation. Other explanations do not fit as well with the
observations.
Evolution is a description to fit what has already been observed. If it were
not, then it would be utter twaddle, with no real basis for its proposal.
If Darwin had not observed what he did observe and record it, he would not
have been able to propose a theory of evolution. It is his observations that
led him to propose what he did!
There are no asumptions in it at all. If other observations are made that
demonstrate that it is wrong in some aspects, it will be modified. Rigorous
testing and peer review is what the scientific community is made of. It is
this rigorous peer review, and testing that gives the theory of evolution its
robutness.
As far as I am aware there is no reasonable explanation for what Darwin
observed, and others have observed.
Regards to you all
John Fulton
Bob Howard
> Bootstrap and inferential methods are not confined to evo. theory. You
> (as you've noted) reject most of astronomy/astrophysics, also you then
> have to reject most of geology/paleontology/anthropology etc since they
> use similar methods.
Can we assume atomic particles exist? Who has ever seen a neutron or gamma
ray. They are only inferred by their effects. An assumption is made that a
track in a bubble chamber was caused by an atomic particle. So the whole of
nuclear physics must be on shaky ground because basic assumptions have been
made. But then the bible writers knew nothing about atoms. Did they believe
as people did later that matter consisted of fire, air, earth and water?
Bob Howard.
John Fulton
Fulton) writes:
:>
:>In message <9eeplm$26o$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz> - "Craig Bell"
I must correct my last sentence!
As far as I am aware there is no other reasonable explanation for what Darwin
and others have observed.
I humbly apologise for my serious erro!
John Fulton
writes:
:>
:>
:>"Matthew Healey" <md...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message >
I think that the atomic theory is on better foundation than that. There are a
series of observations that can be explained by the hypothesis provided by
atomic theory. Other hypotheses do not seem to fit and provide better
solutions to the observed phenomena.
There are three separate descriptions that all seem to work, a particle model
provided by Rotherford et al, a wave theory provided by De Broglie &
Schrodinger, and a mathematical model involving matrices provided by Dirac.
It does not matter much which model you use the answers all come out the same.
Here we have three very different descriptions of atomic theory, all of which
work and provide good answers, who knows which is right, and does it really
matter? If they all work - they all can be regarded as accurate and good
descriptions. As soon as something is found that one of them fails on, it
will be discarded provided the others are still valid. Hessenbery put a fly
in the ointment with his uncertainty principle which put limits upon how much
we can really know about atomic particles in regard to velocity and position,
but this in no way invalidates any of the three previous theories.
I susopect that if one fails they will all fail!
Matthew Healey
John Fulton wrote:
> Hessenbery
who is this Hessenbery fullah? D'you mean Heisenberg or perhaps
Heigelfairy or was it Hasslewally.
:-)
> put a fly
> in the ointment with his uncertainty principle which put limits upon how much
> we can really know about atomic particles in regard to velocity and position,
> but this in no way invalidates any of the three previous theories.
>
> I susopect that if one fails they will all fail!
>
> Regards to you all
>
> John Fulton
matt
:p
Bob Howard
"John Fulton" <jfu...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote in message
news:9eft4e$t9c$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> I must correct my last sentence!
>
> As far as I am aware there is no other reasonable explanation for what
Darwin
> and others have observed.
The trouble is that is not good enough for creationists. They want someone
there with a video camera filming evolution as it happens.
Bob Howard.
...Tom
wrote:
>
>The trouble is that is not good enough for creationists. They want someone
>there with a video camera filming evolution as it happens.
Why not head down to the nearest stock farm and watch it in action
live?
...Tom