Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers

[Grim Reaper]

Young children (who are not necessarily idiots) are encouraged to simplistically believe that man evolved FROM apes by "science" and "museums" depicting a chain of being starting with 'a ape' and ending with "a man".

And here's the central problem. The starting creature isn't an ape, it's a primitive hominid. The only reason to think it's an ape is if you're not interested in learning more about evolution, at which point the poster isn't being directed at you any more.

The 'Ascent of Man' may not be a 100% accurate picture, but it's also not completely wrong.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well you learned me something. (Maybe you are the real Grim and not a member of his/her family who's borrowing the keyboard).

It looks very much like an ape (especially in some variations) but it's meant to be an "ape-like" remote ancestor or perhaps hominid as you said. However, since I believe that most so-called 'hominids" are actually just failed monkeys (or apes).............

The 'Ascent of Man' may not be a 100% accurate picture, but it's also not completely wrong

That's what I like about origins science - the precision. Not at all the same thing as selectively arranging the bits to conform to the idea. Scientifically not correct - at least we both agree on that

And by the way, I don't think that public schools in the USA are allowed to propagandise any children with positive considerations of God - they are only permitted to propagandise negatively and in support of inaccurate depictions of scientific thought.

That's what you keep implying every time you bring up controversies as if it invalidates everything we do know.

No I don't. Never have. You are simply making this up - i.e. lying. Scientific controversies arise from what we don't "know" but believe to be the case subject to later information and discovery. You are quite right - believing that birds evolved from dinosaurs (?) doesn't mean they did. As it doesn't mean they didn't.

pretty strong guess by looking at the fossil record and comparing them to existing primates. We're the only primates that aren't covered in hair, so the farther back from "us" that we go, the hairier our ancestors get. So saying "no one knows a damn thing" is completely dishonest. We do know, you just don't want to accept the evidence until someone invents a time machine and brings forward one of our ancestors.

Try finding out the difference between "pretty strong guess" and "knowing" something. No-one "knows" the degree of hairiness of the so-called hominids. Artists depict them as hairy because that is the desired picture of those who espouse the theory. You give the reasons why some people think that to be true - there is no "evidence" (assuming you use the forensic sence). As if one didn't know that and is exactly what I've been saying anyway - first the theory then the picture - not an unreasonable sequence that.

Anyway, the time machine is a good idea since the "time machine" of the fossil record provides inadequate support for Darwinian human origins theory

Meade

[Grim Reaper]

It looks very much like an ape (especially in some variations) but it's meant to be an "ape-like" remote ancestor or perhaps hominid as you said. However, since I believe that most so-called 'hominids" are actually just failed monkeys (or apes).............

Hominids are more 'failed humans' than 'failed monkeys'. The early hominids look like ape-like because the rest of the primates didn't really change much over the millenia. They stayed in largely the same areas as before, they stuck to the forests and climbing trees. The early hominids struck out from the forests and into the savannah.

And by the way, I don't think that public schools in the USA are allowed to propagandise any children with positive considerations of God - they are only permitted to propagandise negatively and in support of inaccurate depictions of scientific thought.

And it's not really inaccurate, or at least any more inaccurate than anything else that is taught in school. We don't have a full understanding of gravity, but we teach just enough in schools so kids have a basic idea of how gravity works. We teach what we know, even if we don't know the full answers ourselves. I'll bring up plate tectonics again, we have a pretty good idea of how plate tectonics work, but we don't really know why we have plate tectonics when the two closest planets (Mars and Venus) aren't nearly as geologically active as Earth is.

No I don't. Never have. You are simply making this up - i.e. lying. Scientific controversies arise from what we don't "know" but believe to be the case subject to later information and discovery. You are quite right - believing that birds evolved from dinosaurs (?) doesn't mean they did. As it doesn't mean they didn't.

Right, but at this moment, we don't have any better explanation. We have dinosaurs, bird-like dinosaurs, dinosaur-like birds, and birds. It's entirely possible that they are just a complete coincidence, but very unlikely.

We look at what we know in the fossil record, and we look at what we know in modern animals. We know animals can mutate over time, but to people that disbelieve in large scale evolution, that mutation somehow "knows" just enough to keep the animals the same species as before, when there's nothing that indicates any such limiting factor in mutations. There's nothing we can see in the genetic code that would stop a wolf from eventually evolving into something much different. The mutations will pile up as time goes by until we end up with a different species.

So we see some dinosaurs starting to show bird-like features, and become more bird-like as time goes on, and then we have birds starting to appear in the fossil records. When we look at the fossil record and when we look at modern birds in comparison to reptiles, the best answer we can come up with is that birds used to be feathered lizards that ran around on two legs.

Which leads to the problem, pointing out a controversy doesn't invalidate the theory. It just means some people disagree with it. Pointing out the controversy is one thing, providing a better alternative explanation is another. So simply pointing out the controversy doesn't actually mean anything. We know that dinosaurs might not have evolved into birds, but we don't have any evidence that proves otherwise and the explanation of birds coming from dinosaurs fits with what we know better than any alternative explanation so far.

Try finding out the difference between "pretty strong guess" and "knowing" something. No-one "knows" the degree of hairiness of the so-called hominids. Artists depict them as hairy because that is the desired picture of those who espouse the theory. You give the reasons why some people think that to be true - there is no "evidence" (assuming you use the forensic sence). As if one didn't know that and is exactly what I've been saying anyway - first the theory then the picture - not an unreasonable sequence that.

It's not the desired picture because it's how we want things to look, it's the desired picture because it fits with the facts that we know. It fits with us, and with everything we know about the other primates that are still around. We're the only species of primate that lacks a thick coat of hair over most of our body. The hair we do have in certain areas, head/underarms/pubic area, all have a function of helping to regulate body temperature, and the hair we have on the rest of our body is fairly well useless. So where did it come from?

The general theory is that our ancestors lost most of their hair as they became more bipedal, they reduced the amount of skin that would be hit directly by the sun. And as our ancestors started hunting more instead of just being gatherers, they needed more ways to cool off rapidly, which is why we're also the only primate that has sweat glands all over the body.

So it's some guess work, but it's educated guess work. And again, it fits with what we know better than any alternative solution.

[rubato]

"...

People who think we came from chimpanzees are quite ignorant and believe in non-God origination of life. They think they know "evolution". One of the things that influenced them in their ignorance is the chain diagram showing a gradual change from monkey at one end to man at the other. They can see it. They do see it. They are intended to see it. It reinforces their ignorant prejudice. It wears down the objections of other not-so-smart people who do NOT think that "we came from chimpanzees". They see the picture and its endorsement by "science" and "museums" and "natural history books" and they think it must be right. It is the kind of "teaching" that little children are exposed to - because they don't know much and they can be propagandised heartly.
... "
Meade

People who think that the theory of natural selection says that humans came from chimpanzees are nearly always ignorant creationists. "Science " and "Museums" do not on the whole promote that belief. You must never enter either one.


yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

If you're going to argue your corner, at least come up with something better than shaving birds

To be fair Meade, at least he is arguing his corner. Creationists as a rule demand evidence and proof from evolutionists but are unwilling to offer any evidence for the creationist belief. Arrogance? Maybe so...

[MajGenl.Meade]

People who think that the theory of natural selection says that humans came from chimpanzees are nearly always ignorant creationists

Well that's a much better way to put it - "think that the theory says..." is far more accurate than "believe that humans came from chimpanzees". I fixed the rest for you.

Sean - already noted. I don't like the term "evolutionists". I am an "evolutionist" - clearly animals evolve/adapt/change, as any fule farmer kno. At issue (as Huxley understood) is origins.

Science (absent the ability to experimentally verify - such as is the case with "origins") puts forward observations with theories to account for those observations and predictions of what might be expected to occur if the theories are substantially correct. That's what GR's latest post did. It is upon the things that are put forward as "evidence" that argument rests.

Science is a matter of concrete proofs by its very nature. Religion is not - it is metaphysics where "proofs" if one can use that word at all are found in argument itself. Religion also observes, theorises and predicts and also regards the existence of things as evidence and refuses to concede that "evidence" can only be both defined and interpreted by science. The same evidence serves both but generally speaking the kinds of people you appear to mean by "evolutionists" (eg Dork-ins) arrogate to themselves the right to determine what "evidence" actually is. Arrogance is evident at both extremes I think

"Creationists" (another term I dislike for its catch-all quality) are in many cases raving lunatics. Ideas - one cannot call them theories - that God made all rocks simply look millions of years old deserve howls of derisive laughter.
I acknowledge that to the Dorkins of this world, all religious ideas are equally lunatic, including my own.

when there's nothing that indicates any such limiting factor in mutations. There's nothing we can see in the genetic code that would stop a wolf from eventually evolving into something much different

I understand (and have for years) your points GR - thank you for making them so clearly. I wonder what you would make of an argument from silence if I made it?

Meade

[Grim Reaper]

Religion also observes, theorises and predicts and also regards the existence of things as evidence and refuses to concede that "evidence" can only be both defined and interpreted by science.

Evidence, as defined by science, is something that can be tested, even if not directly. We can not directly test gravitational forces, but we can look at the effects of gravity to see how it matches up with our theory.

Religious evidence on the other hand boils down to "God did it". Which is an inherently untestable claim. God has made Himself very difficult to find. And it's also why faith is so important to religion, it's the believing that He exists, despite no concrete evidence of His existence that is the central pillar of religion.

Therefore everything we see in the universe has to be explainable as if He doesn't exist. Which means birds appearing out of nowhere doesn't make sense. They had to come from somewhere. And the best answer we have for that "somewhere" is found in small feathered dinosaurs that became more bird-like as time went by.

Which is also why there's nothing stopping mutations from piling up and creating a new species. There can be no divine intervention to keep wolves as wolves forever as that would prove that He exists.

Note, I'm not saying that God doesn't exist, just that He has made Himself completely untestable.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Note, I'm not saying that God doesn't exist, just that He has made Himself completely untestable.

Wouldn't you?

[loCAtek]

Yup, God is unscientific, Or; 'God moves in mysterious ways'.
Or;
'the true aspect of God is incomprehensible and unknowable.'
-Wiki
Or;

[MajGenl.Meade]

Religion also observes, theorises and predicts and also regards the existence of things as evidence and refuses to concede that "evidence" can only be both defined and interpreted by science.

Evidence, as defined by science, is something that can be tested, even if not directly. We can not directly test gravitational forces, but we can look at the effects of gravity to see how it matches up with our theory.

Religious evidence on the other hand boils down to "God did it". Which is an inherently untestable claim. God has made Himself very difficult to find. And it's also why faith is so important to religion, it's the believing that He exists, despite no concrete evidence of His existence that is the central pillar of religion. Therefore everything we see in the universe has to be explainable as if He doesn't exist

GR I think you identify the problem I referred to. "As defined by science" - sorry but "science" (whoever that may be) has no more right to determine what is and what is not "evidence" (in general) than does "art" or "diving". The scientific method has rules of evidence that it applies to itself to regulate the process of science and that is as it should be. Science cannot (for example) declare that eye-witness testimony in a court case is "not evidence" - science cannot declare that the writings of Plato are not evidence that Socrates existed. They are "evidence" - they are not "proof" and cannot be tested. They are outside the scientific method

All things that existed or do exist or will exist are "evidence" - but of what? That is the question.

Religious evidence does not boil down to "God did it". (That is a conclusion by the way - not evidence at all). The evidence is the same for religion as it is for science - the observable natural universe - plus the evidence of testimony and the use of logic and of reasoning to theorize as to why there is anything rather than nothing.

Everything in the universe is not "explainable as if He doesn't exist", although no doubt many people wish it were so (and therefore say that is so). Unless you mean by the use of declarative sentences such as "the universe has eternally existed" - which is not science at all but metaphysics.

Meade

[Grim Reaper]

GR I think you identify the problem I referred to. "As defined by science" - sorry but "science" (whoever that may be) has no more right to determine what is and what is not "evidence" (in general) than does "art" or "diving". The scientific method has rules of evidence that it applies to itself to regulate the process of science and that is as it should be. Science cannot (for example) declare that eye-witness testimony in a court case is "not evidence" - science cannot declare that the writings of Plato are not evidence that Socrates existed. They are "evidence" - they are not "proof" and cannot be tested. They are outside the scientific method

We can test eye witness accounts by cross-examining the witnesses or by corroborating with other information. And scientists can also test eye witness testimony in general to find out how accurate it is, which changes how it gets used in courtrooms. But they're not going to throw out all eye witness testimony without at least looking into it first.

We are pretty certain that Socrates existed, we can look at not just the writings of Plato, but the writings of other people from the same time period. We can look at those writings to look for inconsistencies that would arise from a fictional character. And so far there is no evidence that Socrates was anything other than a real person.

Evidence has to be testable in order to be evidence. Without being testable, it's not evidence. It's just an anecdote, a personal story. You can say you can use the word all you want, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore the basic definition of the word. What you're trying to do is prop up stories as evidence when that's not how it works. You can say it's unfair if you want to, but that doesn't mean you get to twist the definition of a word to fit how you want things to be. That's the exact opposite of the scientific method, and why religious "evidence" doesn't work.

Religious evidence does not boil down to "God did it". (That is a conclusion by the way - not evidence at all). The evidence is the same for religion as it is for science - the observable natural universe - plus the evidence of testimony and the use of logic and of reasoning to theorize as to why there is anything rather than nothing.

I'd love to hear an example of religious "evidence" that doesn't boil down to "God did it".

Everything in the universe is not "explainable as if He doesn't exist", although no doubt many people wish it were so (and therefore say that is so). Unless you mean by the use of declarative sentences such as "the universe has eternally existed" - which is not science at all but metaphysics.

What I mean is that we could explore every inch of the universe, discover every theory for why things work, and never once find any evidence of divine intervention. God has hidden Himself, because He desires that we believe in Him through faith alone.

[MajGenl.Meade]

We can test eye witness accounts by cross-examining the witnesses or by corroborating with other information. And scientists can also test eye witness testimony in general to find out how accurate it is, which changes how it gets used in courtrooms. But they're not going to throw out all eye witness testimony without at least looking into it first.

Those are valid points. However, it's not an exhaustive argument. Eye-witness testimony may be neither verifiable nor disprovable by any means available. What is known of Socrates comes from contradictory writings by Aristophanes, Plato, Xenophon and Aristotle (who wasn't born until 15 years after Socrates is said to have died). We may be reasonably assured by three eye-witnesses that there was a 'Socrates' - but we have no assurance of the facts of his life or his ideas. In all cases, there is no cross-examination, no other corroborating information, no "test" that can be applied to verify which details are correct. Science in fact, does not apply. Historical criticism, literary historical criticism may apply - science does not (and cannot). Library science perhaps? [At any rate, please understand that I accept the past existence of Socrates - that's not at issue]

Evidence has to be testable in order to be evidence. Without being testable, it's not evidence. It's just an anecdote, a personal story. You can say you can use the word all you want, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore the basic definition of the word. What you're trying to do is prop up stories as evidence when that's not how it works. You can say it's unfair if you want to, but that doesn't mean you get to twist the definition of a word to fit how you want things to be. That's the exact opposite of the scientific method, and why religious "evidence" doesn't work.

Once again I deny your definition of evidence - you are speaking of "scientific evidence" which is not the only kind of evidence that exists. Or rather, science examines the evidence that exists according to certain self-imposed rules. Those rules do not necessarily apply when other disciplines examine the same evidence.

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof. Many issues surround evidence, making it the subject of much discussion and disagreement. In addition to its subtlety, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines, including science and law, adding to the discourse surrounding it.

I'd love to hear an example of religious "evidence" that doesn't boil down to "God did it"

Certainly - the universe exists. That's evidence. Again, you appear to be confusing evidence with conclusions.

What I mean is that we could explore every inch of the universe, discover every theory for why things work, and never once find any evidence of divine intervention. God has hidden Himself, because He desires that we believe in Him through faith alone.

Unless you already possess exhaustive knowledge of all things, you cannot truthfully, factually or scientifically claim that exhaustive knowledge will not include evidence of "divine intervention". [Can we avoid that term - God did not 'intervene', He created everything].

"God has hidden Himself" is now a claim in the area of theology - not science. The God I know of is not hidden nor does he desire that we believe in Him through faith alone. Isaiah 1:18 "Come let us reason together, says the Lord" and 1Peter 3:15 "Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope". We are saved by Grace alone through Faith alone - but knowledge of and trust in God is not a blind faith.

Meade

[Big RR]

Whether divine intervention exists or not, science must examine everything from the perspective that it does not. Sceince is concerned with how things work, and divine intervention is any easy crutch to fall back on and cut off further inquiry. My dog does not have to understand why her food arrives when she is hungry, she knows it is provided by some process that she need not understand (kind of like a divine intervention); reliance on a supernatural explanation is much like that. Scientific inquiry would require the a priori conclusion that the process would be comprehensible and, hence, not supernatural.

So science will investigatte how something works and reject the ease at which the supernatural can be invoked to hijack the inquiry. If good is truly supernatural, no natural evidence of divine intervention will suffice to "prove" divine intervention. That may relegate god to the gaps in our scientific knowledge, but IMHO it need not. The supernatural and the natural are very different lines of inquiry. I personally have no problem in reconciling the existence of god with science by realizing this.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Hi BigRR - well I do not care a bit if science examines everything from whatever perspective it likes - their playground, their rules of how they conduct themselves. That's not the point.

The point is that science does not and cannot declare that "X" is evidence and "Y" is not. They can talk as much as they like that X is evidence of....... and Y is not evidence of..... whatever material phenomenon they are investigating. However science cannot by its nature rule on metaphysics. Not can it declare what metaphysics may or may not use as evidence for metaphysical enquiry.

I do not concede to "scientists" the right to decide what is and is not evidence per se. Within their discipline - that's OK. Outside their discipline - that's not OK. These are exactly as you say "different lines of enquiry".

And thanks for the comparison of metaphysics with your dog's lack of thoughts on din-dins

Meade

[oldr_n_wsr]

Not to get into this conversation because I can add nothing... but I will anyway as I saw something that I can relate to...

My dog does not have to understand why her food arrives when she is hungry, she knows it is provided by some process that she need not understand (kind of like a divine intervention);

While my dog does not understand where the food comes from, he does know that he has to do certain things in order to get that food (the "why"?). In the morning before he gets his breakfast, he has to go retrieve the newspaper (of course I have to go out with him as I have not trained the paperboy to throw the newspaper over the fence yet). At night before dinner he has to take all the toys he has spread around during play time and that he pulled out while home alone and bring them to his toy chest. He also has to give everyone a kiss (lick) when they come home from work.
now if it was that easy to teach my children!!!!

[Big RR]

And the obsessive compulsive "knows" they have to turn the light on and off six times before retiring or they may die in their sleep. And that's my point--they don't care how or why something "works", they leave that to something beyond their knowing and do their rituals. Scientific inquiry requires that we abandon that reliance on the supernatural, and look for natural,observable, and testable cause and effect.

[Grim Reaper]

Those are valid points. However, it's not an exhaustive argument. Eye-witness testimony may be neither verifiable nor disprovable by any means available. What is known of Socrates comes from contradictory writings by Aristophanes, Plato, Xenophon and Aristotle (who wasn't born until 15 years after Socrates is said to have died). We may be reasonably assured by three eye-witnesses that there was a 'Socrates' - but we have no assurance of the facts of his life or his ideas. In all cases, there is no cross-examination, no other corroborating information, no "test" that can be applied to verify which details are correct. Science in fact, does not apply. Historical criticism, literary historical criticism may apply - science does not (and cannot). Library science perhaps? [At any rate, please understand that I accept the past existence of Socrates - that's not at issue]

The cross-examination comes from comparing the different texts that tell us of his life.

Once again I deny your definition of evidence - you are speaking of "scientific evidence" which is not the only kind of evidence that exists. Or rather, science examines the evidence that exists according to certain self-imposed rules. Those rules do not necessarily apply when other disciplines examine the same evidence.

There has to be only one kind of evidence. That's kind of the whole point of the word. Saying you can make it mean something else means it is no longer evidence. When you have to change the meaning of a word to make your "evidence" work, then you should rethink your strategy. You do not have evidence just because you say so. You have evidence when it has been independently verified somehow.

Certainly - the universe exists. That's evidence. Again, you appear to be confusing evidence with conclusions.

Right, that's "God did it" in a nutshell. We might not know the exact reason for the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean that "God did it" is the only possible answer. It may have been a random accident. It may be a natural occurrence. It might be a cyclical event, it might be a test tube in a lab somewhere.

Unless you already possess exhaustive knowledge of all things, you cannot truthfully, factually or scientifically claim that exhaustive knowledge will not include evidence of "divine intervention". [Can we avoid that term - God did not 'intervene', He created everything].

Creation itself is an act of intervention though. Without creation, nothing would follow. And the idea of not supporting evolution on a large scale is that He has intervened constantly in the creation of new species and in preventing mutations from accumulating enough to evolve new species.

"God has hidden Himself" is now a claim in the area of theology - not science. The God I know of is not hidden nor does he desire that we believe in Him through faith alone. Isaiah 1:18 "Come let us reason together, says the Lord" and 1Peter 3:15 "Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope". We are saved by Grace alone through Faith alone - but knowledge of and trust in God is not a blind faith.

God has hidden Himself as He has made certain that there is nothing that undeniably points toward His existence. Everything we see can be explained as if God does not exist. And the answers we don't have don't necessarily require that God exists, just that we need more knowledge.

The point is that science does not and cannot declare that "X" is evidence and "Y" is not. They can talk as much as they like that X is evidence of....... and Y is not evidence of..... whatever material phenomenon they are investigating. However science cannot by its nature rule on metaphysics. Not can it declare what metaphysics may or may not use as evidence for metaphysical enquiry.

Science doesn't declare that "X" is evidence and "Y" is not. What scientists do is test "X" and "Y" before declaring that one is evidence and one is a story. But that's not the same thing as defining evidence. Evidence has already been defined. Science just looks and tests things to see if they fit the definition of evidence or not. Religion ignores that step and just defaults to "God did it" if you go on long enough.

[oldr_n_wsr]

And the obsessive compulsive "knows" they have to turn the light on and off six times before retiring or they may die in their sleep. And that's my point--they don't care how or why something "works", they leave that to something beyond their knowing and do their rituals. Scientific inquiry requires that we abandon that reliance on the supernatural, and look for natural,observable, and testable cause and effect.

Being someone who is fully involved in the AA "suggestions" (some call it brainwashing, but I do know that I needed a brain washing) God (High power "as I understand him") plays a big part in the recovery of us alcoholics. Being the engineer/part time scientist I am this weighed on me greatly. In the Big Book they referenced Einsteins theory of relativity and electricity and such and while they said people don't understand it yet they believe in it, I am one of the exceptions in the room. I do understand it and as such, I could not take things on faith. I needed empirical evidence, and proof of such things. MAny a night I spent with my sponsor who finally said you have to figure it out for yourself. And I have. I have figured out my higher power (hell, alcohol was/is a higher power) and I am at peace with that which I came up with. It works for me.

When I hear the word "God" I thin of Charlten Heston in a robe and a beard and a staff ready to stike down this little boy for thining of "dirty thoughts" about his baby sitter. So you'll have to excuse me for finding a different definition.

[MajGenl.Meade]

God has hidden Himself as He has made certain that there is nothing that undeniably points toward His existence

That may be what you believe - what you have faith in - but it is not a statement of science. You do not know everything in the universe (nor do I) and cannot validly claim that there is "nothing" that undeniably points toward His existence. Science can neither prove nor disprove God - there is nothing that undeniably points toward His non-existence either. It also cannot answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" All it can do is ponder all the somethings and put forward theories on the mechanics of the entire shebang - subject to revision should more information become available.

There has to be only one kind of evidence. That's kind of the whole point of the word. Saying you can make it mean something else means it is no longer evidence. When you have to change the meaning of a word to make your "evidence" work, then you should rethink your strategy. You do not have evidence just because you say so. You have evidence when it has been independently verified somehow.

Oh dear - I totally fail to make myself clear. Yes - there is only one "kind" of evidence. You are the one defining evidence as only that which is acceptable to "science". I am not changing the meaning of the word - you are. I say that the same evidence can be used to reach different conclusions (obviously not all cases call for, require or need a different conclusion). Birds might have dinosaurs as ancestors - and they might not. But the relative roundness of the Earth is not a maybe/maybe not.

What frequently occurs is that any claim that such-and-such is evidence for God, is stated to be "not evidence" because it is used to support a conclusion that materialists do not like. I would agree with your statement amended as this: "Science tests things to see if they fit the scientific criteria of evidence or not" - within the discipline of science, that is the job of the scientist. Metaphysics and its evidences are not. When this kind of argument is made, it usually boils down to "God didn't do it".

I acknowledge that within the discipline of science only certain evidences (usually empirical) which can be subjected to certain tests (usually empirical) are acceptable.

Neither history nor testimony nor hearsay (nor metaphysical reasoning) are subject to scientific reproduction and "test". By the way, since the known accounts of Socrates life and ideas are contradictory how's the comparison going? The Socratic Problem is intractable. Also (patiently) again, comparing Plato to Aristophanes is not "science" - it is historical/literary research.

Logic by the way is also actually independently unprovable - since one must use logic to prove that logic is valid. Science is no help there either.

Meade

[Grim Reaper]

That may be what you believe - what you have faith in - but it is not a statement of science. You do not know everything in the universe (nor do I) and cannot validly claim that there is "nothing" that undeniably points toward His existence. Science can neither prove nor disprove God - there is nothing that undeniably points toward His non-existence either. It also cannot answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" All it can do is ponder all the somethings and put forward theories on the mechanics of the entire shebang - subject to revision should more information become available.

It can't currently answer "why is there something rather than nothing", which is why scientists keep looking. We've answered a lot of questions along the way thanks to people wondering "why" instead of just accepting that "God did it". This is just another question to be answered in the fullness of time.

Oh dear - I totally fail to make myself clear. Yes - there is only one "kind" of evidence. You are the one defining evidence as only that which is acceptable to "science". I am not changing the meaning of the word - you are. I say that the same evidence can be used to reach different conclusions (obviously not all cases call for, require or need a different conclusion). Birds might have dinosaurs as ancestors - and they might not. But the relative roundness of the Earth is not a maybe/maybe not.

I am defining nothing. Scientists look at evidence and deem it acceptable as evidence or just an idea someone threw out there. You say birds might not be from dinosaurs, but that raises the question of how they could spontaneously exist since nothing can evolve into anything new. The alternative theory is more complex than the accepted theory. Which makes it less likely to be true.

What frequently occurs is that any claim that such-and-such is evidence for God, is stated to be "not evidence" because it is used to support a conclusion that materialists do not like. I would agree with your statement amended as this: "Science tests things to see if they fit the scientific criteria of evidence or not" - within the discipline of science, that is the job of the scientist. Metaphysics and its evidences are not. When this kind of argument is made, it usually boils down to "God didn't do it".

It's not evidence, not because it doesn't support a conclusion that scientists don't like, but because it can't be verified to support any conclusion. And it boils down to "God didn't do it" because there is no evidence that God had any hand in it.

We have evidence of birds and dinosaurs at varying stages of the evolutionary path, and we have evidence that mutations accumulate as time goes by. What we don't have evidence of are species spontaneously erupting out of nothing or any evidence of mutations somehow limiting themselves to keep species the same as time goes by.

So that leaves the simpler explanation, birds evolved from dinosaurs, rather than the more complex explanations that involve reality behaving in ways we have never observed it behaving before.

Neither history nor testimony nor hearsay (nor metaphysical reasoning) are subject to scientific reproduction and "test". By the way, since the known accounts of Socrates life and ideas are contradictory how's the comparison going? The Socratic Problem is intractable. Also (patiently) again, comparing Plato to Aristophanes is not "science" - it is historical/literary research.

There may be some problems with Plato's writings, but he wasn't the only one who wrote about Socrates. And research is a method used by scientists.