extracted from
http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/

<<..Prior to the discovery of DNA,..the evidence against*..the theory of evolution was significant>>

ie..the phenotype gaps
not evidenced genotype

<<...Since the discovery of DNA the evidence against the theory of evolution..has become overwhelming!!

<<Literally,.because of the discovery of DNA,..the theory of evolution has become the most absurd scientific theor.. in the history of science!!

<<For example,..could a DVD of country music ..which represents DNA)
..*be randomly mutated..into a new Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto..or anything else..that is useful..(meaning the DNA of a new species)?

Obviously not.

Yet,the theory of evolution..claims that human DNA,..
which is 3.2 billion pairs of nucleotides long,..came to exist by a long series of...lol..accidental "mutations" to DNA.

What nonsense.!..>>>

CHECK OUT THE MATH:}

http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/Evolution_Of_Evolution.pdf

from pdf

<<..how is it possible that the scientific/establishment can be so supportive..of the theory of evolution,..and yet other scientists consider the theory of evolution..to be absurd..(*from a scientific standpoint,..yet everyone...is looking at the same data?}

<<The reason.there is a vast gulf..between evolutionists and creation scientists...has nothing to do with scientific discovery..and has everything to do with initial assumptions.

<<Those who have no interest..in God..begin their "quest"
with an assumption..there is no God..and that evolution is true...They then look for "evidence" to support..their beliefs and gain converts.

<<Those who believe..in God..begin their "quest"
with a belief..that God created all*things.

<<*They..then look for "evidence"
to support their beliefs...and they may try to..AGAIN..to gain converts.

<<Thus,..the "gap" between evolution/creation science..did not begin with scientific evidence,..*it began and ended with different foundational beliefs.

<<Instead of starting with no beliefs,..and then looking for evidence,..both sides of the debate typically started with their core beliefs ..atheism or a belief in God),..*then they started looking for evidence..to support THEIR beliefs.!

<<This is exactly why the.scientific evidence can be identical,
but the end..beliefs..can be so far apart.

<<The two parties in the debate..did not start from..*the same starting point,..nor did they have..*any intentions..of changing their
initial assumptions or beliefs...>>..!*!..

sounds true..so forget..your faith..
...*dispute the math...if you can

http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/Evolution_Of_Evolution.pdf

.

Dear one under god,

.

« i know science..can lead to proof of god..that’s where i began”.
.

Thanks, one under god. That’s pretty clear and straight forward. I have noted your position on that.
.

[<<Those who believe..in God..begin their "quest"
with a belief..that God created all*things.

<<*They..then look for "evidence"
to support their beliefs...and they may try to..AGAIN..to gain converts.”]
.

I wonder if that is different from the “scientific method”? Perhaps George has something to say on that point.

.

dear banjo

i note that ANY science project needs funding
and this will need a peer review..etc..

lets admit..that they will not fund..issues
that may conflict..with a great money stream..faith in science assures

[look how lab-coats feature in adverts..
perception are everything..its faith in the 'science'..
that allows live aids virus grown on monkey serum..to be injected into african kids

or superbugs or german gas chambers
and many other lesser known issues..like adverse reactions causing death..from percription drugs...

[as i myself at present am finding ..i just spent 4 days on intravenous drug drip..and now have an infection from the cannula

modern me-die-sin..its great mate
same peer re-view.,.

oh well..death where is thy sting
as jesus said..this is satans realm
if you cant explain it..maybe having faith in it.. is misplaced

e-volution..sic*..
is just the next church..
for controlling the neo-faithless..
taught to trust the science..as they loose faith in religion.

peers review is great for stasis
baffle em with bull

same game..
different name

Dear Banjo,

Yes, you understood me correctly. Actually, what I was trying to argue was that it is not the business of science to "prove" anything about reality, only to form theories that agree with observed phenomena, can make verifiable predictions and thus explain reality through these theories. You prove things beyond any doubt only in pure mathematics or formal logic (or in trivial, everyday situations where the premises are universally understood and/or agreed upon).

Banjo, OUG,

>>I wonder if that is different from the “scientific method”? Perhaps George has something to say on that point.<<

“Looking for evidence to support one’s beliefs” makes sense only when either

(a) both, “belief” and “EVIDENCE” are understood as purely subjective, as is the case with fundamental worldview beliefs, or

(b) when both are objective, i.e. happen within a shared framework of more fundamental beliefs, for instance concerning scientific investigation or in the court. This cannot be the case with FUNDAMENTAL worldview beliefs often based on concepts that are not definable to everybody's satisfaction. That is, unless one sees “evidence” only as a support for these fundamental, a priori held (theist or materialist) beliefs. This kind of “evidence” is better communicated across the theist/materialist divide as (stronger or weaker) ARGUMENTS.

Hi Antiseptic,

Principally we are in agreement. Deduction whether in mathematics or not, is pure logic, induction or abduction are not. However, I agree, they are very important when forming assumptions about observed reality. These assumptions are then incorporated in a (physical) theory about (part of) reality, where they move to the background and deductions, binding for everybody, prevail. Here the subjective character of induction and abduction does not matter (only one subject, the researcher, is involved) in distinction to when applied to reasoning - as mentioned before - where at least two subjects are involved.

I am not very comfortable with the concept of truth except in trivial situations, religion or symbolic (mathematical) logic, when speaking of truth values (1 or 0) of propositions. Only the last situation, "familiar" to all computers, is non-controversial, “worldview-free”.

So I think it is important to distinguish between “getting new ideas” where abduction is essential, and debating or reasoning, where it can lead to a cul-de-sac because of its subjectivity.

Maybe abduction (“best explanation” for a new set of experimental data) indeed played a role in the rise of quantum mechanics, but I do not see how it could lead from one approach to theology to one approach to biology.

I don’t understand in what sense is God non-linear.

OUG thanks, those are very interesting ideas.

Hi George,
A fascinating discussion, thanks for helping me to think about this. I find that the best way to organise my own ideas is to have someone to discuss them with. As I read somewhere recently, "how do I know what I think until I hear myself say it?"...

I completely agree with you about the potential for circularity in abduction/induction. The "grounded theory" approach" to scientific reasoning is an attempt to avoid that, in that it includes reflexivity as an essential aspect of the process. Having arrived at a new set of premises through induction, the next step is to inductively assess those premises for congruence with observed reality and only then can deductive reasoning be used to assess implications.

The problem with it is that it can fail at the second step, the inductive one, because of that sense that a mathematical or rigorous solution is an eternal verity. If one is too strongly committed to a particular paradigm, then it takes a great deal of effort to accept a new insight that is divergent from the consensual (empirical) reality. On the other hand, if one is simply eclectic, then there is little chance of deriving a useful set of precepts that can inform deduction, since induction does not have a basis for filtering wheat from chaff.

Creation theology is a good example of the non-linearity I referred to: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth". There's no linear progression from nothing to something, just a sudden emergence of something unpredictable from chaos. I'd go so far as to say that every human advance has been characterised by the same sort of non-linearity. Evolution required a non-intuitive acceptance that all was not as it had always been and that was most certainly non-linear. The deductive implications are still being explored.