The Limits of Science

[jinx]

Have you not heard of Gödel who proved that science cannot prove everything?

Hay so what did Godel do? Mathematically prove nothing can be proven lol?

And when we forget that we use them, that is when they turn into DOGMAS...

Well said.

[tillingborn]

Look in any dictionary under abiogenesis. Take note of spontaneous generation. They are the same thing just renamed because the evo myth needs a creation myth. Yet another way evolutionary dogma hurts science.

I see. So you maintain that because bacteria do not spontaneously appear in sterilised swan necked beakers, life without divine intervention is impossible. Is this an example of the reasoning faculties you believe qualifies you to lecture others on logic?

The origin of life on earth is forever in the past and can never be observed. It is not a matter of observational science.

That the sun came up yesterday is lost to observational science, but we can try and understand the processes that make such an idea tenable.

There is YEC physicists who predict the CMB in their model.

Predict? Can you point me to any paper prior to the confirmation of CBR, in which any YEC physicist predicted it?

[Ginkgo]

Yes the CMB exists. But attaching one cause and one cause only to it is a logical fallacy ie.

1) If i eat a pizza i will be full.

2) I am full.

3) Therefore i just ate a pizza.

Well there could be any number of reasons i am full not just eating a pizza (i drank lots of water, ate a chicken etc etc)

1) If there was a big bang there would be a CMB

2) There is a CMB

3) Therefore there was a big bang.

Well there could be any number of reasons why there is a CMB not jut the big bang ( it could be because Genesis 1:1-31 took place ~6,000 years ago in 6 plain days). The big bang was only thought up last 100 years or so obviously the CMB existed before then so it is an after the fact prediction. Thats how all of big bang/'evolution' works. -Observe ANYTHING in the present, incorporate it into the model, present it as a prediction-observation-prediction confirmed model.

You seem to be suggesting that modern science is based on some type of Aristotelian ontology?

'Modern science' is done by man. Man is flawed. Man has a priori postulates they bring to data (everyone on earth).

What you have here seems to be two examples of a syllogism, as made famous by Aristotle.

The first syllogism is invalid because you are using two predicates that are the same for both propositions. In other words, both propositions are universal affirmative. The second syllogism suffers from the same problem.

A better formulation would reveal that the syllogism is not testing one cause, or any number of causes. The validity of the syllogism is found in its DEDUCTIVE procedures to arrive at a valid conclusion. In other words, it is not testing the validity of cause.

[Ginkgo]

Have you not heard of Gödel who proved that science cannot prove everything?

Hay so what did Godel do? Mathematically prove nothing can be proven lol?

And when we forget that we use them, that is when they turn into DOGMAS...

Well said.

Godel isn't saying that nothing can be proven. What he is saying is that no formal logical system can be both consistent and complete at the same time.

[jinx]

So you maintain that because bacteria do not spontaneously appear in sterilised swan necked beakers, life without divine intervention is impossible. Is this an example of the reasoning faculties you believe qualifies you to lecture others on logic?

I can believe in a flying spaghetti monster inside a teapot circling around the sun and invisible dragons. Neither has been observed so it is not science. Likewise life from non living matter has never been observed (and why would it given there is no law of chemistry that says matter left alone will spontaneously generate into the genetic code through natural processes) hence belief in such a process is not science (it is actually delusional but to each his own). Like if someone came up to anyone in the street and said 'I just saw life (a worm whatever) come from non living matter' they would be looked at like they are delusional. Adding 'billions and billions' of years into the formula is the key ingredient when brainwashing young minds in public schools. Nothing+ nothing=nothing. Nothing+nothing+ time= well that equals everything. Got a problem? Just add time. Problem solved.

Predict? Can you point me to any paper prior to the confirmation of CBR, in which any YEC physicist predicted it?

Any model with the CMB is an after the fact prediction (including the big bang). But propaganda preaches that it is specific to the big bang. Any model would HAVE TO predict it. It is in the present. Like me coming up with a model to explain the origin of my laptop. My laptop is black so my model would have to predict a black laptop.

http://austore.creation.com/catalog/sta ... p-135.html

[Kuznetzova]

A high level of biodiversity is imperative to all life on this earth and snakes have a part to play in this. With hindsight it was a wise choice it would seem.

Evolutionists believe that by chance, a living organism can arise from nonliving matter.

Explain that.

"...that by chance...." !!!

I have specifically and directly and consciously addressed this exact issue right inside of this thread. You are not even reading the posts on this website forum anymore. Absolutely no one claims that life emerged on earth "by chance". Tornadoes do not form by chance. Hexagonal rock formations on the coast of Ireland do not form by chance. Snowflakes do not form by chance. And DNA did not form by chance. In case you missed it (you obviously missed it) here is me repeating myself from earlier in this thread:

DNA was not originally formed from a random process. And you know what? Those rocks on Irish coast were not generated by a "random process" either. There are perfectly-physical processes in the universe that generate order through self-organization. They happen because of known laws, not because of spirits or divine designers. DNA is no exception. There was an order-creating chemical processes (probably involved in the auto-catalysis of RNA) that eventually gave rise to DNA. Very recent research has shown us that RNA has auto-catalytic capacities.

You are operating on a dichotomy that has been indoctrinated into your worldview by creationist literature. The false dichotomy that you must realize is that any ordered pattern in the universe was

(1) created by random chance.
(2) or specifically designed by a intelligent spirit being.

This is a false dichotomy. There are order-forming processes in nature, and these things arise by known laws. These laws are understood in a branch called Statistical Physics.

[Kuznetzova]

Its not just a random sequence of monomers (single units, amino acids for proteins, nucleotides for DNA/RNA) needed its the sequence that dictates function ie the letters on this page if just a random crap shoot of 26 possibilities would yield no/close to no information, its the sequence (that had to come from a conscious source) that gave them there 'information' content.

You have claimed that DNA is evidence of divine intervention in the physical world. I have directly, clearly, succinctly, and relevantly posted material all over this forum (and within this very thread) regarding this exact topic. At this point, your brain is no longer processing the things we are telling you.

There is no way a snowflake would form by accident. Yet we do not conclude that there must exist a Snowflake Fairy that creates them. Tornadoes could never form by sheer accident. But we do not conclude that there is a Tornado Spirit that forms tornadoes. Exactly the same argument works for DNA.

Do you know where most of the DNA on earth is located? It is located within these molecular viral machines called marine bacteriophages. An evolutionary algorithm running on a desktop computer could evolve something more complex than a marine bacteriophage. However, by applying "jinx logic" we would be forced to conclude that marine bacteriophages were specifically designed by an invisible, disembodied, omniscient super-intelligence. Why would we be forced to conclude this? Well simply because marine bacteriophages have DNA in them, and because DNA comes only from God, marine bacteriophages were designed by God.

[Kuznetzova]

[jinx]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... ?q=science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

A invisible dragon has never been observed. A flying spaghetti monster inside a teapot circling around the sun has never been observed. Life from non living matter has never been observed. They are not science. Someone is welcome to believe in them by delusional religious faith, but it is not science.

[Ginkgo]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... ?q=science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

A invisible dragon has never been observed. A flying spaghetti monster inside a teapot circling around the sun has never been observed. Life from non living matter has never been observed. They are not science. Someone is welcome to believe in them by delusional religious faith, but it is not science.

jinx, each time you have posted this you only give us a partial conclusion. Russell's teapot analogy goes on to say that people ( such as yourself) embrace the logic, but are reluctant to apply the same test to the existence of a deity. The evidence you present is the same. There is no reason to assume a God, teapot, Spaghetti Monster, or worms spontaneously appearing out of nothing.

In a previous post you present us with two examples of invalid syllogisms. Yet, this time you get the logic correct, but you only provide a partial conclusion. I am not sure where you got the tea pot analogy,but I wouldn't use it. One reason Russell came up with it was to demonstrate the inconsistent and selective application of the logic.

[tillingborn]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... ?q=science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

A invisible dragon has never been observed. A flying spaghetti monster inside a teapot circling around the sun has never been observed. Life from non living matter has never been observed. They are not science. Someone is welcome to believe in them by delusional religious faith, but it is not science.

Celestial spheres have never been observed, Phlogiston has never been observed, the lumineferous aether has never been observed and, to my knowledge, life from non living matter has never been observed. They are all scientific hypotheses, its just that three of the four have been proved false. The other is a work in progress which, for all that science knows will be proved false; the point is you can test it by experiment. It is people who believe things that cannot in principle be proved false who have delusional religious faith.

[Kuznetzova]

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

A invisible dragon has never been observed. A flying spaghetti monster inside a teapot circling around the sun has never been observed. Life from non living matter has never been observed. They are not science. Someone is welcome to believe in them by delusional religious faith, but it is not science.

Being limited in scope to what is observable could be considered a limit to science. There are some other limits.


"Why are things they way they are?"
Science can not answer this question. I happen to think that science is completely impotent in this question, and that is another limit to science.

Similarly, science cannot explain why there are any particular facts in this universe at all. Scientists of all stripes engage in squirrely and exotic explanations to try to explain why there are facts in the world.
I made a thread about this here in the forum. viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9904



"Can all facts of today be traced in an unbroken, causal history all the way back to the Big Bang?"
Ask this question on any philosophy forum, blog, or chat room. You will shocked/surprised to find that there is no consensus in any of the answers you receive from a crowd. (Is the universe "causally closed" or do quantum fluctuations in every second of the day end up creating facts in the world today?) The inability for anyone to agree on these questions indicates that foundational notions of causality are still confused and unsettled amongst us.

[reasonvemotion]

tillingborn wrote:

Since snakes got mankind into trouble in the first place, what was Noah thinking letting so many different kinds onto his boat?

reasonvemotion wrote:
A high level of biodiversity is imperative to all life on this earth and snakes have a part to play in this. With hindsight it was a wise choice it would seem.
Evolutionists believe that by chance, a living organism can arise from nonliving matter.
Explain that.


Kuznetzova wrote:

I have specifically and directly and consciously addressed this exact issue right inside of this thread. You are not even reading the posts on this website forum anymore. Absolutely no one claims that life emerged on earth "by chance". Tornadoes do not form by chance. Hexagonal rock formations on the coast of Ireland do not form by chance. Snowflakes do not form by chance. And DNA did not form by chance. In case you missed it (you obviously missed it) here is me repeating myself from earlier in this thread:

I was answering tillingborn's post and the question was also addressed to HIM.

As far as "you are not even reading the posts on this website forum anymore", therein lies your problem.

You assume too much.

[Ginkgo]

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

A invisible dragon has never been observed. A flying spaghetti monster inside a teapot circling around the sun has never been observed. Life from non living matter has never been observed. They are not science. Someone is welcome to believe in them by delusional religious faith, but it is not science.

Being limited in scope to what is observable could be considered a limit to science. There are some other limits.


"Why are things they way they are?"
Science can not answer this question. I happen to think that science is completely impotent in this question, and that is another limit to science.

Similarly, science cannot explain why there are any particular facts in this universe at all. Scientists of all stripes engage in squirrely and exotic explanations to try to explain why there are facts in the world.
I made a thread about this here in the forum. viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9904



"Can all facts of today be traced in an unbroken, causal history all the way back to the Big Bang?"
Ask this question on any philosophy forum, blog, or chat room. You will shocked/surprised to find that there is no consensus in any of the answers you receive from a crowd. (Is the universe "causally closed" or do quantum fluctuations in every second of the day end up creating facts in the world today?) The inability for anyone to agree on these questions indicates that foundational notions of causality are still confused and unsettled amongst us.

My understanding is that if the present can change the past then it stands to reason there is no causal chain that we can trace back. The casual change has been broken and re-assembled in an almost infinite number of occasions This seems like a ludicrous proposition, but is now under serious consideration as a possible interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Again, far as my understanding goes, there is nothing in the formulation of classical mechanics that precludes backwards causation. If the mathematics is correct then it would be possible to trace casual events back to the Big Bang. This is because classical theories deal with reality as being objective and out there. It says nothing to say about the role of the conscious observer and there is certainly nothing to say about time in terms of past, present and future. However the Schrodinger equation seems to have changed all of that. It is an attempt to combine the classical with the quantum.

This has resulted in a number of possible interpretations in terms of the role of the observer in determining some type of objective reality. The most popular interpretation in famous live/dead cat scenario whereby it is only when there is a conscious observer of the cat can we determine the state of the cat's health. In order to maintain the validity of classical mechanics the observer is removed in the many-worlds interpretation. This means that the cat doesn't need to be observed to determine it's state of health. Before one opens the box and view a live or dead cat. The two possibilities have already branched off into different objective realities.

There are other interpretations that involve the central role of the observer in determining an objective 'reality' by retrieving quantum information. To cut a long story short. A different version of the double-slit experiment was carried out recently ( don't remember the names) that suggested the results could be interpreted as evidence for present observations by an observer influencing past events. Again, cutting along story short the implications are that time may be absolute and objective. Having no beginning or end. All of this naturally depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics.

[skakos]

Have you not heard of Gödel who proved that science cannot prove everything?

Hay so what did Godel do? Mathematically prove nothing can be proven lol?

He proved that any theory based on a specific set of axioms (as all theories are) cannot prove everything which is true.

When we forget that simple truth, we become dogmatic.

And anyone believing into the "Science will prove everything" motto has done so...