You do know that modern science is based on some assumptions, right? You do know that Mathematic are based on some assumption, which are considered truth, which do NOT need to be proven, and can NOT be proven, right? So is physics. Let's say the belief in ID are based on some assumption, they those believers feel NO need to prove and they can not prove. You chose NOT to believe in ID, without completely proven evolution theroy, without completely factual dismissing of ID. You selected your assumption, which you feel no need to prove and you can not prove, but accuse other doing the same thing. You believe in mathematic and physics (I assume), without anyone present you the hard facts and proof those premises are true, why can't people believing in ID do the same thing?
What? what assumptions is Mathematics based on? Math is man-made. It is defined by humans. What do you mean math is based on assumptions. That is contrary to the nature of mathematics. Physics is nothing more than a description of nature. We see nature operates in a certain way 10 out of 10 times and we make a theory about it. It's based on empirical evidence. If we see something that contradicts it, the theory is modified to be all-inclusive. ID is NOT based on empirical evidence. It's based on reasoning, which is a branch of philosohpy. There is no empirical evidence.
Mathematics is based on axiom, which means "A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument". English is not my mother tongue, please tell me what that definition means. Physics is not just based on experience. It's based on several crucial axioms as well. One of them is the "space time identity". Please check your fact before you try to challenge. Without assumption and axiom, no natural science exists.
What? You just stated the definition of an axiom. You haven't related it to mathematics. You take a couple numbers 1, 2, and 3. What does it mean in the real world? Nothing except how we define it. What does 3 * 5 mean? We define it to mean (5 + 5 + 5) or (3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3). It's man made. I can tell. If you don't know what it means, you shouldn't be arguing. Space time identity? I could not find a formal definition of what you said. Why don't you give me a formal definition?
I don't know whether I should go on. But let me try my best. Mathematics is little bit more than addition and multiplying. There are more than a few axioms serve as the foundation of maths. Following are a couple of examples: A1 Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. A2 If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal. A3 If equals be subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal. A4 Things which coincide with one another are equal to one another. A5 The whole is greater than the part. P1 It is possible to draw a straight line from any point to any other point. P2 It is possible to produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line. P3 It is possible to describe a circle with any centre and distance. P4 It is true that all right angles are equal to one another. P5 It is true that, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles. I copied and pasted here from lectures. Those are all axioms, accepted without demonstration. One thing you probably don't know, which is widly accepted by all education systems, that, "Tautologies excluded, nothing can be deduced if nothing is assumed." The little example you gave, was based on assumption too. You can go ahead to declare them as man-made, I am just going for the academic consensus. Those are assumptions, that 1+1=2, and 1+2=3. You accepted them without any doubt. But you know what, according to my knowledge (could be wrong), 1+1=2 was only proven maybe 10,15 years ago, by a Chinese, who died on the way to prove 1+2=3. Maybe it's proven now. But my point is, it's accepted without proven, just becaue you want to accept it, or you don't have the knowledge or skills to prove it.
Those axioms are intrinsic to math. Math did not pre-define it to exist. For example, the circle axiom, is always true because the definition of a circle is all the points that are equidistance from a point. OF COURSE, it can be defined by a center and a radius. Or A1, is true because we have defined EQUALS to mean what it means. You are confusing number theory with the entire branch of mathematics.
Congratulations! You just PROVED two of the basic axioms in mathematics, not to mention two of those oldest ones, which thousands of mathematicians were unable to prove, and decided to accept them as axioms. What is even more amazing is that you only used two simple sentenses to achieve that. On top of that, you even proved A1 is true by using its own definition. I hated maths at school, by no means I am a good mathe student, but I do realize the profound meaning of your discovery. If you don't win the Fields Medal this year, I will be really really mad.
Ha, now comes the sarcasm. I'm arguing that Math is not BASED on assumptions. Axioms are self-evident truths inherent in the system that it exists. Of course, I'm not knowledgable enough to PROVE those axioms to be true. Here is a forum you can read: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-22717_Is_math_based_on_observations?.html
Just as long as we can all agree that 110% really equals 11%... http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22811
I guess I just have too much time in hand. Here you go. According to Cognitive Science Laboratory at Princeton University, axiom is "a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is <B>assumed</B> to be self-evident ". I assume that means axiom is an assumption. Again, English is not my mother tongue, and you can tell me what that definition means. According to New Mexico Public Education Department, axiom is "A basic <B>assumption</B> about a mathematical system from which theorems can be deduced. For example, the system could be the points and lines in the plane. Then an axiom would be that given any two distinct points in the plane, there is a unique line through them." do you want me to go further? I said in the beginning that mathematics is based on assumptions. Seriously, if nothing is assumed, nothing can be deduced. And you told me in upper case that you were arguing about Mathematics is NOT based on assumptions, but it's man made. I would assume that "man made" means "assumed". After I gave you some examples to show you what the basic axioms in mathematics are, you went on saying that they were of course true because they were defined so. I would again assume that you do know it's a basic logic flaw to try to deduce one definition to itself, right? The reason I brought in the mathe or physics argument, is to show you that axioms do not need to be proven, and can not be proven within the system. It doesn't stop you to use them conveniently and trust them wholeheartedly. For believers, the existance of God do not need to be proven, and cannot be demonstrated. For you, the God's non-existance do not need to be proven (my assumption is based on the fact it's not proven), and cannot be proven. What makes you just decide that they are wrong and you are right? Before you prove them wrong, you cannot accuse them wrong. One of the greats said (probably not the original words), that the more he learns, the more he feels are unknown to him.
Argh, you are repeating yourself. Yes, an axiom is "assumed" to be true. Didn't I say that axioms are inherently true in the universe that they exist in? Axioms don't define math nor are they what math is based on. For example, gravity exists in the Universe. It just exists. Gravity doesn't define the Universe. It is an attribute of the universe. For example, in the world of super mario brothers, hitting a box with a question mark releases a mushroom, when eaten, doubles a persons size. There's the universe of Super Mario, and then there's the box. Axioms are self-evident truths WITHIN a UNIVERSE. THEY DON'T DEFINE IT. I assume you haven't read the link I provided. Math isn't deduced from anything. It's MAN MADE. Axioms are deduced so it does assume something. Man made does not equal assumed. Your assumption is incorrect again. I'll give you one point for this argument. Ha. Again, the definition of an axiom depends on the UNIVERSE it exists in. God is outside the universe, thus cannot be defined by us or any "axiom" or even deduced. That guy likes to waste his breath on stupid sayings while he can be using his time to do research.
I'm not a biologist (obviously), but that represents about 10 minutes of reading on Wikipedia. ------------------- Since ID is being pushed in an effort to make evolution "controversial" it must be pointed out that there is no controversy present in the scientific community. There is on the other hand "controversy" in politics, public policy, public schooling, and religion. As heated as the debates get on this board, it only has meaning in those forums. As a result, ID's only potential goal is to undermine science teaching in public schools, accentuating a trend that is already appearing. Economically, the US has a need for more scientists, and more engineers. The influence of the US on a global scale will fade as the best and most innovative minds in the world stop travelling to the US to study, live, work, and contribute.
I’ve got other posts that I’ll get back to later but I’ll jump ahead for this one. I’m not sure what you believe you’ve shown here. Let me clarify some of the points. The problem posed by the Cambrian Explosion is not that all evolution is said to have happened there but that a huge amount did. There appears to be no good explanation for this and this rapid development runs strongly contrary to what would be expected through the very slow process of random gene mutation leading to the evolution of ever more complex species. Yet most evolutionists will say something like “since we know evolution is true there must be an explanation for this.” In other words they are trying to make the facts fit the theory. Their starting point is that evolution is true and they are out to prove it. This fits perfectly with Kuhn’s explanation of the self delusion and the power and the politics of scientific revolutions, but it is obviously not in keeping with good science. It’s is fine to investigate this issue further but the scientific position on this would have to be that it is a big strike against evolution (lets call it vertical evolution to higher levels of complexity), and evolution should certainly not be talked about as a fact. On macro evolution I think we’re going to have to pick a different term. That one seems to mean different things to different people. What I mean by macroevolution I will now call vertical evolution, meaning evolution to higher level of complexity. A brown moth becoming a white moth I’ll call lateral evolution and amoeba becoming a fish I’ll call vertical evolution. It’s the vertical evolution that there is really no evidence to support and indeed it goes against everything else we know about how cells mutate. The drift is caused by natural selection. Many destructive mutations are witnessed, but no constructive mutations, i.e. mutations that create a more complex organism. It just doesn’t happen that way. The origins of life is a little more tricky than the origins of matter but even at that your piece shows that there is no clear theory. We’re back to the “it must have happened somehow” non-scientific, faith/politics based position. There is nothing wrong with exploring the question, but to say it has happened, that it is a fact, without even a good theory for how it might have happened is again obviously not scientific. If we take one step further back it becomes even easier though. How do you get matter from nothing? This question is key because once you acknowledge that there must be something greater (which does not preclude that things can be learned about that thing and learned through research and experimentation) you open up a new world of possibilities and you pave the way for moving past trying to force fit the existing facts into the theory of evolution where they are a very bad fit at best.
