New Dinosaur Fossil with Feathers

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

besides are you serious, you used the word error of method and exponential in the same argument.

search propogation of error, uncertainty measure. then actually determine the uncertainty in your measurements.

oh that’s right you would need a variance of measure and lowest determinable amount (given repeated measure and to what degree of certainty you want in your measure), but these trivial to real scientist.

[/quote]

There, as always, is error in the measurement. This error introduces uncertainty into the results, sure. But, it’s not like those making the calculations hide that fact… Given that the uncertainties are always told forthright, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. It’s not like the uncertainties are so great that they can get an age of 4.5 billion years–the accepted age of the earth–but really the rock was only 7 thousand years old.

Your insinuations that if they were doing real science they should take multiple measurements in order to find the standard deviation and whatnot are silly. What is your point? I’m not a working scientist who does this sort of testing, but the people doing this sort of work are not idiots, I’m sure they take this into account. You’re going to have to do better then simply imply that those making these measurements have never really bothered to find the standard deviation of their measurements or that they did and try to skew their own results by tampering with their own measurements.

42

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Spartiates wrote:

Sure there can still be God, but once you want him to have a plan for us, to have made us what we are special, you’re into Intelligent design, and out of evolution and science.

Oh, and can’t leave this behind. Incorrect again.

Intelligent Design is not exclusive of science - it is an extrapolation from examination of science. Science is very much part of Intelligent Design - ID is a philosophical conclusion based on a review of science.

Can’t have ID without science. And no, science isn’t “out of” a Deity’s plan - it isn’t a rejection of a plan, or outside of it. [/quote]

ID is Creationism in a cheap tux. It’s not science buy any measure of the word.

43

[quote]Makavali wrote:

ID is Creationism in a cheap tux. It’s not science buy any measure of the word.[/quote]

I didn’t say ID was “science” - learn to read. Intelligent Design - and I mean in the broad sense of the teleological argument for the existence of God - is a philosophical conclusion based on an examination of what science has provided.

If by “Creationism”, you mean Biblical literalism, then no, Intelligent Design is not the same - the end is the same, but the means of arriving at the conclusion are entirely different.

I don’t believe “creation science” is science and should not be taught as such. Moreover, I am not using Intelligent Design to mean the political movement that wants to push “creation science”.

44

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Spartiates wrote:

Sure there can still be God, but once you want him to have a plan for us, to have made us what we are special, you’re into Intelligent design, and out of evolution and science.

Oh, and can’t leave this behind. Incorrect again.

Intelligent Design is not exclusive of science - it is an extrapolation from examination of science. Science is very much part of Intelligent Design - ID is a philosophical conclusion based on a review of science.

Can’t have ID without science. And no, science isn’t “out of” a Deity’s plan - it isn’t a rejection of a plan, or outside of it. [/quote]

I really hate these “C.vs.E.” and “Young Earth/Old Earth” discussions. I remember being tired of them when I was like, 13.

My education is in Earth Science/Geology/Geophysics. I’ve been a ‘dinosaur geek’ since before I could walk, and a rock-hound since not too much after that. I audited a local college paleontology course when I was in highschool and taught geology classes/labs in college as well as part of my R.A. in grad school, including “Historical Geology” (ie. earth history/fossil record/evolution). I’m also Catholic.

Of the literally hundreds of professionals, professors, students/grad students in the field, that is, those educated in earth origins, tectonic development, fossil record, paleontology, etc. the vast majority (of those who I conversed with, and I’m a “talky” one) at least believed in God, Higher Power, or something bigger than what we witnessed on a daily basis. That included people from Russia, Africa, Australia/New Zealand (one of my grad advisors was a Kiwi). One of the leading scientists who helped shape how we think of Earth Tectonics is a devout Mormon. Two professors on my undergrad advisory team were very active in their respective churches, one Episcopalian, the other Presbyterian (both with a taste for fine, single malt scotch in the field). That’s not to say that there aren’t as many or more militantly Atheist scientists, I’m just making a point that those with Faith who practice science realm of Earth Sciences and Evolution (ie paleontology, biological evolution, etc) isn’t as rare as most might assume.

I could go on ad infinitum. My point is that believing in something bigger, and even believing that they are responsible for the things that happen in the world around us doesn’t not preclude them from practicing fundamentally sound science.

Further, those who dabble in real issues concerning evolution theory know that there are real problems with it, especially in the physical ‘mechanisms’ of it. Most people don’t understand “Adaption” versus “Evolution”, which is fundamental (ask yourself if you understand that before you go “Google” it…) Remember, “transitional species” is just an “arm-wavey” label that someone gives something to fit it in between species X and Z. It’s roughly the equivalent to the old “Far Side” cartoon that has a scientist with a huge equation on the chalk board and a big “MIRACLE HAPPENS HERE” in the middle of it. To rock solidly defend evolution as flawless requires as much “faith” as believing in a higher diety.

Many priests who even know who he is will tell you “Bishop Ussher” took a lot of liberties to come up with his “Age of the Earth” chronologies— Bishop Ussher is solely responsible for the “6000 y.o. Earth” everyone likes to quote but have no idea where the number actually came from. We used to party on his birthday (“Bishop Ussher Day”).

“Faith” and “Science” are not mutually exclusive. “God (or, whoever) did it” is a valid answer to “how did this happen”. The “science” part is to find out “HOW” He (they) did it.

I’m exhausted.

45

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

“Faith” and “Science” are not mutually exclusive. “God (or, whoever) did it” is a valid answer to “how did this happen”. The “science” part is to find out “HOW” He (they) did it.

I’m exhausted.[/quote]

This is a serious question, since I respect you, but what then does it mean to say that “God did it” if you also have a complete naturalistic explanation (the “how” you refer too)? Perhaps I misunderstand you, but unless you’re going to go down something like a Leibnizian road where you claim that God is required to simply sustain the existence of all other substances, I don’t see how God can be meaningfully said to have taken part in a fully naturalistically explainable event. For example, if one did have a fully worked out theory of evolution that explained all the data, what sense is there in saying that “God created the animals”? I suppose you could retort that God created all the original matter and got the whole process going–perhaps even that he in his infinite wisdom set the initial conditions just right so that now a few billion years later we have arrived just where he wanted us to–but that hits the same problem. Once we have a completely worked out physics and cosmology, there will be no need for God to enter into the discussion at all.

Save the Leibniz route, I just don’t quite see how you can have your cake–that God had a meaningful role to play in the world we see around us–and eat it too–but that we could eventually have a fully worked out naturalistic science which explains that same world.

46

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:

Save the Leibniz route, I just don’t quite see how you can have your cake–that God had a meaningful role to play in the world we see around us–and eat it too–but that we could eventually have a fully worked out naturalistic science which explains that same world. [/quote]

Yeah, we can’t. Unless you can accept inherent contradictions, and are fine operating knowing that what you “know” or believe can never be more than heuristics. You get your cake and can eat it to by using the same apparatus that allows grown men to believe that the bread they are eating is the flesh of God, or that 3 = 1.

47

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:

“Faith” and “Science” are not mutually exclusive. “God (or, whoever) did it” is a valid answer to “how did this happen”. The “science” part is to find out “HOW” He (they) did it.

I’m exhausted.

This is a serious question, since I respect you, but what then does it mean to say that “God did it” if you also have a complete naturalistic explanation (the “how” you refer too)? Perhaps I misunderstand you, but unless you’re going to go down something like a Leibnizian road where you claim that God is required to simply sustain the existence of all other substances, I don’t see how God can be meaningfully said to have taken part in a fully naturalistically explainable event. For example, if one did have a fully worked out theory of evolution that explained all the data, what sense is there in saying that “God created the animals”? I suppose you could retort that God created all the original matter and got the whole process going–perhaps even that he in his infinite wisdom set the initial conditions just right so that now a few billion years later we have arrived just where he wanted us to–but that hits the same problem. Once we have a completely worked out physics and cosmology, there will be no need for God to enter into the discussion at all.

Save the Leibniz route, I just don’t quite see how you can have your cake–that God had a meaningful role to play in the world we see around us–and eat it too–but that we could eventually have a fully worked out naturalistic science which explains that same world. [/quote]

The way I see it is that creating a model that works without God doesn’t prove God doesn’t exist however if my model works without him I might as well live my life as if he doesn’t exist as that is the most likely scenario.

48

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
This is a serious question, since I respect you, but what then does it mean to say that “God did it” if you also have a complete naturalistic explanation (the “how” you refer too)?
[/quote]

No, it was more like saying, OK, God did it, fine, now let’s figure, using fundamental science principles just how He did it. In other words, literal interpretations or not, many religions work in the framework that something, some being, some force, whatever, greater than humans created the universe and Earth, and other alien worlds, like New Jersey (ha). Some choose to believe it happened in 3 days, or 7, or 12, I don’t know. Maybe it’s enough to say "I just can’t comprehend infinitely, and maybe God (or whomever) works on a wickedly different time scale than humans, maybe his millisecond is like a trillion years. I don’t know, and we’ve all heard those kind of comparisons.

So some of us believe that there is a higher power responsible for creating the universe in which we live. Good science allows us to understand some of the physical rules in that universe and come closer to understanding our origins. Maybe that’s part of the plan, maybe not. I don’t know. I don’t care. I don’t lose sleep over it. There’s a couple hundred years of precedent of good science by those who have had faith in God, Allah, Buddah, Ralph the Cabbage (extra credit if anyone gets that reference without Google), or whatever.

I don’t know. I honestly can’t quote Leibniz philosophy off the cuff and I’ve forgotten a lot of the math attached to his name. What good is it knowing that Apple built your iPod?

You ask me “How did this device come about?” I say “Apple built it.” – Is it not a true statement? “How did they build it?” I say, “Let’s go get a screwdriver and find out”. To me, that’s really all it’s about.

I can function just fine with ambiguity, uncertainty, contradiction, and uncertainty. Some people need black and white and have it spelled out for them, I guess.

I guess all you guys who know the truth about the Universe have evolved past me and other scientists who apparently believe in God.

Congrats!

49

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

You ask me “How did this device come about?” I say “Apple built it.” – Is it not a true statement? “How did they build it?” I say, “Let’s go get a screwdriver and find out”. To me, that’s really all it’s about.

[/quote]

Here is where we are talking past each other, or something.

I think that when you say that you can believe that God “did it” and that science’s role is to find our “how” he did it that what you mean is that God “created it” and that science’s role is to find out “how it all runs”. Hence your ipod example, and your talk of how we can pull it apart to see how it works but that won’t tell us how it was actually made.

The only problem with this perspective is that you already have to take a stance on deep metaphysical questions just to take this perspective. Mainly, you have to assume that there is some clear and distinct difference between the question of “how it was made” and “how it runs”. My point in my original post was that what happens when sciences–physics mainly–progresses to the point where answering the “how it runs” questions leads to an answer to the “how it was made” question (We’re already knocking at this door, aren’t we?). If that happens, then there is no more room, or at least no more need, to talk about God. More importantly, if that happens there is no sense to saying “god made it”, since in our efforts to understand “how it runs” we uncover a naturalistic explanation of “how it was made”.

Of course, you can have your cake and eat it too if you hold the position that the “how it was made” question can never be reduced to the “how it runs” question, or you simply assume that the fact that the universe exists entails that something outside the universe (something supernatural) was needed to create it, or something. Although question begging, you certainly can take this position.

Don’t get me wrong. In the end, I’m not saying that there is a necessary tension between talk of a God and science. This is a whole different discussion entirely. My only point–why I first posted–was that if you hold the view that eventually naturalistic explanations will be available for all observed phenomenon, including the existence of the universe, then it is hard to see what role God can meaningful be said to play in any of these things. God can still exist, God can still meaningfully interact with the universe, and do all those sorts of things, but it’s just not clear what sense there is to saying that “God did it” if there is a naturalistic explanation.

50

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

I can function just fine with ambiguity, uncertainty, contradiction, and uncertainty. Some people need black and white and have it spelled out for them, I guess.

[/quote]

I hope you didn’t mean the part about contradiction. From a contradiction anything follows.

51

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:

I can function just fine with ambiguity, uncertainty, contradiction, and uncertainty. Some people need black and white and have it spelled out for them, I guess.

I hope you didn’t mean the part about contradiction. From a contradiction anything follows. [/quote]

Are you suggesting there are no contradictions in the sciences? Ever been to an academic conference?

52

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:

I can function just fine with ambiguity, uncertainty, contradiction, and uncertainty. Some people need black and white and have it spelled out for them, I guess.

I hope you didn’t mean the part about contradiction. From a contradiction anything follows.

Are you suggesting there are no contradictions in the sciences? Ever been to an academic conference?[/quote]

Yes I’ve been to an academic conference, I’m a PhD student. There are contradictions in the sciences, but no one is shrugging them off. Sure, you can still make progress in science in the face of ambiguity, uncertainty and contradiction. I took you to mean something more though, that we should accept or embrace such things. Surely we shouldn’t, even if in practice we can work around them.

53

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Sure, you can still make progress in science in the face of ambiguity, uncertainty and contradiction. I took you to mean something more though, that we should accept or embrace such things. Surely we shouldn’t, even if in practice we can work around them. [/quote]

And so it goes in science and religion.

This has been fun, thanks.

54

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Sure, you can still make progress in science in the face of ambiguity, uncertainty and contradiction. I took you to mean something more though, that we should accept or embrace such things. Surely we shouldn’t, even if in practice we can work around them.

And so it goes in science and religion.

This has been fun, thanks.[/quote]

If you’re point is simply that it’s a mystery exactly how God can be involved in the explanation of a universe that is completely naturalistic, but that nevertheless religion can operate under this assumption until we can explain it, then that is a fine position to hold.

If that’s what you meant though your original statement is very misleading. Your original statement makes it sound like it’s perfectly consistent to assert that “God did it” and that “There’s a naturalistic explanation for it too”. Obviously these require some explanation, so it’s not perfectly consistent to assert these without further qualification.

The point is that your statement no longer does the work you wanted it to once the ambiguity is made clear. You mentioned this all, I assume, as some sort of support for the idea that supernatural religious beliefs are consistent with modern science. Just because you can work under such a premise though doesn’t somehow imply it’s true. It may turn out that after another thousand years of philosophy and physics it’s obvious that one can’t reconcile these two positions, just like after some more development in science itself it may turn out that one can’t reconcile GR and the standard model. Just because physicists can work perfectly well most of the time by assuming these two theories doesn’t mean that ultimately they are compatible.

The real point is that while ultimately one might be able to reconcile some set of religious dogma that still looks like Christianity with modern science, at present the evidence sure as hell looks less than promising.

55

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
The real point is that while ultimately one might be able to reconcile some set of religious dogma that still looks like Christianity with modern science, at present the evidence sure as hell looks less than promising. [/quote]

Oddly, I don’t feel discouraged at all.

56

[quote]Sloth wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
The real point is that while ultimately one might be able to reconcile some set of religious dogma that still looks like Christianity with modern science, at present the evidence sure as hell looks less than promising.

Oddly, I don’t feel discouraged at all. [/quote]

That is understandable. Hopefully it’s equally as understandable that many others will be more than skeptical and will need more than allusions to faith or pragmatics in order to accept such a thing.

57

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
The real point is that while ultimately one might be able to reconcile some set of religious dogma that still looks like Christianity with modern science, at present the evidence sure as hell looks less than promising.

Oddly, I don’t feel discouraged at all.

That is understandable. Hopefully it’s equally as understandable that many others will be more than skeptical and will need more than allusions to faith or pragmatics in order to accept such a thing. [/quote]

Do I understand that skeptics exist? Well, I’ve met a great many over the years.

58

New “oldest human ancestral fossil” reported - Ardipithecus ramidus - more than four million years old, and a million years older than “Lucy”.