Reproducing scientific results

Matthew


Please don't think I was being facetious when I wrote this - I wasn't. I genuinely enjoy reading what you write and I have to confess these is some familiarity with your thoughts. Like Rob, I've sat and marvelled at the world and the stars on many an occasion - most people do I suppose - or they should do, and it's incredible to think this could all just be a result of an accident. I don't know if that's the case or not - there is a fashion nowadays to try and discover the undiscoverable. Perhaps it's our inquisitive nature, but I guess that also got us where we are today - for better or worse. I sometimes think I would like there to be an eternal power that looked out over all, perhaps nurturing things along, influencing and tweaking to a great master plan. But I don't think there is. It's just too big out there - too vast. We could never keep the man in pies for goodness sake and besides, he's probably an American. I saw it in a movie!

I suppose I'm an argumentative atheist, Matthew - mostly arguing with myself over the question that haunts us all. Drop some acid, sip some beer look at it from a different perspective if, for no other reason, it has a different view.

Kindest
Mark

 

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, "quote of the year 2012". I'll test that out with some of my sanctimonious, exercise obsessed, vegan patients on Monday, Mark- see how it goes down.

 

It would be a different place, Simon, that's for sure. Memorable certainly. Crazier, perhaps - perhaps not. Double dare.

 

Hi Mark.

I see. Would you like me to clarify further on the parts that appeared like "riddles"? I don't feel it could have been the section questioning the validity/science of evolution (which was the crux of my purpose anyway). Yet, I have had questions asked of me relating to my personal (alternative) position on the topic; hence the ambiguity more likely stemming from the areas where I was referring to the metaphysical aspects. Yet, like I said earlier in this thread, there are some areas which are controversial/sensitive (as well as a bit personal) for a public forum...

Thus I have alluded to some points as well as added further insight to these areas in subsequent posts, of which I then made reference back to previous citations. Some may pick up on these points (if familiar with the topic) & others may find them as "riddles". Like I said, I just didn't/can’t be too specific on some areas of which I can understand will potentially create some air of confusion. Also, I must admit that this writing medium isn't the most conducive means to have a conversation of this nature... 1 - the true underlying meaning (& intentions) can get lost in translation; 2 - potentially sensitive views being discussed on a public forum may not be appropriate.

However, the “conviction” is there .

And what do you think the naturalism/materialism perspective on Origins are invoking? This has been the crux of my discussion (hence no point repeating it again). However, in short - it doesn't add up (i.e. probability of precise/orderly mechanisms coming together & in sometimes irreducible fashion)... & the logic is left wanting (i.e. life can only come from life - not non-living material). I understand these are hard questions to explain/grasp but the naturalism explanation invokes blind faith in an attempt to avoid an explanation to invoke a cause that transcends the natural world as we know it - we humans have coined a word for it - the supernatural - something that transcends the world of naturalism (matter & energy). Well Mark, we are both using something right at this very minute which doesn't fall into the realm of just matter & energy - our mind (& it is more than just electrical impulses); hence the boundaries of sole naturalism/materialism are just too restrictive for a topic as vast/complicated/uncharted/mysterious... & important as this one is. I really do think we should leave the "superstitious" tag by the wayside on this topic (i.e. leave it for the New Age material igs.

Thanks Mark. Nice thought i.e. finding me a place in Scotland (nice picture BTW). Not sure what you meant by "rednecks" in Oz (thought they’re inhabiting regions of southern U.S – so I have heard), initially read that as red backs (dangerous Australian spider). Anyway, the crocs are further up north from where I am but one does need to be careful of the snakes & spiders... but we're made of pretty tough stuff here in Australia. I have also done your suggestion in the U.S - Mammoth National Park (California), at the base of Mt. Ritter (of which did climb the following day). Just a sleeping bag under the stars (at altitude) in bear country. Came closer to reaching "my maker" the following day where I nearly fell off the mountain whilst descending down a cliff face (of which two climbers the previous week did die).

As far as the LSD is concerned; I’m sure that will just lead to deception - fun as the experience may be at the time - yet I'm sure none the wiser after the experience (at least on this topic). I believe we mustn’t use any potential mind altering substances. I feel we must also reduce as much as possible the amount of toxicity that enters our system... for the potential for optimal performance (thus true enlightenment). Thus why I am a vegan, don't drink alcohol (as well as caffeinated tea & coffee), don't smoke & keep away from junk food... & I exercise regularly (traits in part were cited recently in this thread ).

Speaking of "riddles" & "LSD" (in the same framework), here is a riddle for you. Unlike my "riddles", this one doesn't appear to have a definitive answer (if one at all)... "Why is a raven like a writing desk?...



Taken from one of my favourite movies - Disney's animation classic: Alice in Wonderland - the Mad Hatter's tea party scene (from Lewis Carroll's... Alice's Adventures in Wonderland). It is rumoured that the animators of the film tested with some stuff (i.e. acid/LSD) during its production.

Related to the topic, there is also one of my favourite songs, which effectively combines the two... a song based on Alice in Wonderland & the use of certain substances :wacko:: Jefferson Airplane's 1967 hit - "White Rabbit"...



So, you can see the surrealistic nature of what acid/LSD can potentially conjure up (as fun as it may appear); I very much doubt the experience will get me any closer to finding enlightenment on what should be one of the biggest questions humanity can find answers to.

Thanks Mark - that's cool. I think it's important to have a sense of humour when discussing topics of this nature... particularly as you state, when trying to "discover the undiscoverable"... or what may appear to be undiscoverable (at this point in time/in our present state). Yet, during the journey in doing so, we must keep in mind the objective of attempting not to violate known scientific & philosophical laws & principles... it is because of this reason I have been heading in the direction I have.

Going by quotes associated to the above post, it would appear to me that you more closely resemble an... agnostic, rather than an "atheist" - of which I feel is a wiser position to be in... considering the evidence thus far... & the shaky foundations of the alternative (i.e. molecules to man evolution).

All the best on your journey of discovery ...

Matt.

 

Fellow ponderers

The problem with this argument is there is no possible resolution or agreement since the two camps each have their own global view with an undeniable ultimate truth as its foundation.

One, science, has the immutable physical laws and (according to Dr Steven Hawkins and M-theory) gravity as the ultimate truth

The other, Intelligent Creationists, Has God as its Ultimate truth.

Science says physical laws created the universe and obviously the creationists say God did it.

Creationists are quite happy to allow science to explain the natural order and physical properties of the universe since it only makes sense that God would have created an ordered universe with physical laws that remain constant.

Science, or rather many scientists, however cannot accept God because of the very fact that science, by its own rules, can only investigate the tangible with inductive research methods and for the less tangible science like evolution and cosmology use Abductive reasoning i.e. extrapolating a probability from known data to find the most likely explanation and testing it by comparing its consistency to external observations.
Since God is intangible to unbelievers and other gods or the actions or affects of other gods cannot be observed (since they don't exist ) there is nothing to formally compare. And of course actions (plainly obvious actions) and effects of God can, for those scientists, have an explanation abducted from many other theories that are far more palatable than having to face up to God.

I read this about Dr Steven Hawkins his M theory and infinite multiple universes:

Dr Hawkins explained when asked 'why and how is it that our planet should be in such a well balanced and finely tuned position in the universe to produce and maintain life as it is with immutable and reliable physical laws that govern it'
He is said to have replied that if there are an infinite number of universes (as he proposes) then it stands to reason that one of those would have the right conditions for supporting us, our life and planet, as we are.

The problem with that reasoning is this; by the same token then there must also be a universe with an omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable God and so such a God must, by that definition, be in every universe and so in this one and so in terms of God there is only one universe and that is the one we are in with God.

The thing is, I have experienced God, which is by any defintion, 'normal' since he is also experienced by perhaps >3.5 billion other people on earth and by that very multi experiential and global empirical fact would it be unreasonable by observing and understanding this, to extrapolate by abductive and deductive reasoning that God does exist? Would it be foolish then to come to the conclusion that God is the Creator of life and all the paraphernalia requires to sustain it?


Regards Dave

 

Ladies and gentlemen, we are floating in space: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE0lBbBNR1Q

I'd highly recommend listening to the entire album from start to finish.

 

I've got a hunch the asteroid theory is spot on. The Mayans had it sussed all along - it was only a matter of time - and you could calculate that. Hence the madness that slowly engulfs. And it explains the crap weather. Anyone behind it? Does it matter? Anyone remember Cremola Foam?

 

Interesting thoughts David Smith.

I personally feel it does matter Mark – particularly when our livelihood & lives are at stake. Like I said earlier, there is something odd (to say the least) happening on a global scale... it may not be noticeably obvious for many (which is just one aspect of the deception). I really don't want to dwell on the conspiracy side of things because this topic alone has a lot of deception/vagueness within the topic (naturally). But you did ask... "Anyone behind it?” - which is an interesting question. Without delving into the more metaphysical aspects of that question, how about doing a general search on the... Illuminati. Now once again, there is some nonsense & deception scattered throughout this topic as well (as one would naturally expect due to the nature of the topic) but as you wade through some of the material you will be surprised with some of the various views & signs out there (YouTube being an interesting source of such views). It's just a suggestion - you will at least find it interesting (sometimes alarming). Maybe some of the pieces of this giant puzzle will fit into place for you (or anyone else for that matter).

And remember... mixing a little error in with truth is the ultimate form of deception... & a little bit more error along the way & we develop a creeping compromise where the once considered "norm" in values, ideals, liberties etc... have & will change... in line with a hidden agenda.

Hence, be on your guard – no mind altering substances to be taken (acid/LSD :wacko .

Well, it's been an interesting discussion all. Time I part. All the best.

 

While we're here

This is veering off a bit but still under the OP discussing validity of scientific results and conclusions thereof. So, I have a question for those who have knowledge of geology, and this is it:

What is the process of layering in sedimentary rock formations?
I have discovered two methods but they are not really described in geological texts about sedimentary rocks where there is a general statement that sediment is laid down in layers over time but there is always a failure describe how there are layers or it says layers or strata are formed by 'natural forces', whatever they may be is left to the imagination.

There is a good reason for this question which will be revealed later as I don't want to influence or bias your answers.

Regards Dave Smith

 

You're not suggesting the Mason's are behind Intelligent Design surely?

 

Hi Dave, the answer to your question is not possible in a few words; there is so many processes in sedimentary formation. Perhaps the place to start is James Hutton, considered by most to be the father of modern geology - he died in 1797. He said two thing which we need to remember: 1) The Earth is "imeasurably old", and 2), in order to understand sedimentary processes of the rock record, we need to study the proceeses today. That is, the present is the key to the past. From this, he coined the principle of uniformatism - that those processes of the past, accumulated to provide us with the landscape we see now.

Let us pick on one process - that of progadation. A river comes down from the mountains to the sea; as it travels, it slows, as it slows, its ability to carry a sediment load diminishes and it deposits. So, in your own mind picture this river from the side, over a length of perhaps 1000km (eg the Amazon). Sediments of large dimensions upstream, at the same time as smaller sediments downstream, are being depositied at the same time - known in the trade as "Diachronous sedimentation" (diachronous = at the same time). This means that, as time goes on, the river rides over its old sediments, and "progrades" outwards into the sea. Look at coal deposits....... This gives, in section, a sediment demonstrating particles which get larger as one moves upwards - classic CU (Coarsening upwards) cycles.

However, one sees the other - fining upwards cycles in mudflats at sea - and in deep sea depositis known as turbidites.

To get a better handle on these, I refer you to a text by Maurice Tucker, ex of Durham: an introduction to sedimentatry processes.

Oh, the answer to your question about "forces" is simply mantle convection, which in its turn provides us with plate techtonics. Even the Creationist cannot deny this - it is measurable by many diffiering techniques, mantle tomography, magnetic reveresal polarity to mention a couple. And never mind the odd seismic event; try telling the population of Christchurch that there is no plate tectonics.................


Perhaps I have uunzipped my fly for the first time, so to speak; my first degree is in Geology.

Cheers, Rob

 

Hi Mark, may a coin a phrase of yours used earlier... “OK - against my better judgement....”

No, not at all Mark – I’ll think you’ll find the case being quite the contrary. Besides, I didn’t bring up this issue in relation to “Intelligent Design”... it was mentioned because of two questions you asked in a previous post ... “Anyone behind it? Does it matter?” I provided then clues as to the candidates relating to... “Anyone behind it?” & subsequently why it should matter to everyone, in order to gain a clearer picture of the underlying issues/agenda. Please dig further into the origins of the Secret Societies i.e. Illuminati (& subsequent offshoots/offspring), Skull & Bones, Freemasons, Zionism... & the connections. I just intend to point you in the direction – I will not be discussing these issues in any detail (if at all) on a public forum. Thanks.

I suspect a can of worms will be opened on this one David. Anyway, I trust you will help dispel the myth of uniformitarianism – frankly, this antiquated hypothesis should have washed away & eroded at the death of James Hutton in 1797 – oddly enough the birth year of uniformitarianism’s next main disciple - Charles Lyell (1797 – 1875)... who naturally influenced Charles Darwin. Yes, it’s rather intriguing the connections you find in association with the evolution agenda. Of course uniformitarianism is a needed ingredient for the evolution paradigm to sprout legs & run... you see they need time (i.e. millions of years)... time for the conjecture/hypotheses to be at best - possibly plausible... for the associated issues such as the geologic column, strata formation, paleontology/anthropology, the fossil record, evolutionary biology etc. to substantiate each other (sometimes with circular reasoning mind you). But as the sands of time weather away we often find what once was supporting evidence for the likes of uniformitarianism usually gets turned on its head to then actually go on to support a more science based alternative... a younger earth with much quicker geological formations.

Anyway, you will no doubt discuss interesting observations associated with:

- tightly bent strata formations which show no evidence of fracturing or melting process – hence they were formed/folded whilst in a soft state, before the sediments had time to solidify... hence rapidly formed.

- The “flat gap” (straight line) contact plane between rock stratum which lacks any significant erosion... yet supposedly millions of years of geological time took place. These are known as “Para (pseudo)conformities”. You can often see these when driving your car through rock cut outs – quite frequent around Sydney i.e. F3 leading north to the Central Coast. Hence case for rapid formation.

- Then there is the inter-bedding of strata (adjacent) layers that are speculated to be separated by millions of years of supposed geologic time. Hence case for rapid formation.

- Subsequent lack of erosion events between the supposed younger strata & older strata. Look outside your window – the world isn’t flat (oh boy, there is a pun in there somewhere )... there is irregularities as a result of weathering. Known as “unconformities” – there are very few signs of it – yet if we were to go along with the uniformitarian belief, it should be very prevalent. Hence case for rapid formation.

- With the above observations in mind we can then observe the result of rapid sediment formation – rapid canyon formation via catastrophes such as the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption. Characteristics found in this young geological event strangely resemble geological characteristics found in a much older geological event – The Grand Canyon (which is speculated to take millions of years to form). Hence another clue for rapid event formation.

- Then there is also the issue of polystrate fossils i.e. tree trunks that stray (i.e. vertical) through strata layer where there has been millions of years gap assumed (now that’s one tough tree trunk). BTW, it would of interest to read up on what happen to the thousands of trees after the Mt. St. Helens eruption; clue – what position they were found in (i.e. position in water).

- Then there is the various cases for rapid erosion rates i.e. on continent & coastline.

- Oh, & as has been raised in a previous post, we can also talk about paleomagnetism (i.e. rapid reversal thereof) which also helps undermine a long age belief system.

- Then there are also the issues surrounding Polonium & Uranium radiohalos found within granite i.e. substantiating rapid formation as well as faster decay rates during a global geological catastrophe (thus not millions/billions of years old).

Well, there are at least a few issues to ponder on relating to the topic & of what observation & reproducibility is required for good science (aka, the crux of this thread) to take hold & be allowed to reveal interpretations & subsequent conclusions on.

Umm... well as I stated at the start of this post... “OK - against my better judgement....” I will respond to the above dig Rob (i.e. Creationists speculated views on plate tectonics). I will leave the rest of your post alone (Just don’t have the time – besides the response relating to David’s post should provide some insight). However...

Yea, thanks for highlighting plate tectonics. Yes, not only Christchurch but those unfortunate people (i.e. hundreds of thousands) hanging around the coastline around the Indian Ocean back in December of 2004 may also be excused for thinking that there is movement (to say the least) beneath our feet. Unless there are some who still choose to believe in a Flat Earth (of which I believe the president of the “Flat Earth Society” also believes in evolution – well that figures). Anyway, here’s a word of advice; please don’t build up straw man opinions on those with an alternative view to your obvious evolutionary/uniformitarian persuasion (going by your history & signature). Please don’t let your enthusiasm... lead to misrepresenting others & subsequently misstating the facts associated with what should be well-known geology (i.e. plate tectonics). Creation orientated Geologist have done plenty of research on not only plate tectonics (some go further to incite “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics”) but also the other areas you have touched on (i.e. paleomagnetism & subsequent association to plate tectonics). I am surprised considering your stated interest in Geology that you are not aware of this. I too have an interest in Geology (& have two friends who are Geologists).Thanks.

 

Not going there; there is no point. Sorry, my mistake, I thought this was a scientific forum.

 

Yes Rob, well that's at least something we can both agree on apparently (albeit from different perspectives). With the above attitude there is no point on what this is a scientific based forum. All what was intended was to provide just some examples of geological events which contradict the uniformitarian view... & there are plenty of other examples i.e. relating to dating.

Then I provided insights on your misrepresentation of Creationists with regard to plate tectonics... hey, I should know. I also know there are varying views (models) out there with regard to plate tectonics & other geological events - from both sides of the fence. However, I am not restricted to the confines of evolutionary/uniformitarian parameters.

I could say more but no doubt 1/ waste my time & 2/ potentially frustrate your chosen world view of interpretation of the same evidence (data)... either of which probably not conducive to either of us at this point in time. As I've said before, let's wait & see what future research/evidence washes up... ironically, time will tell.

All the best.
Matthew.

 

Rob and Matthew

Thanks for your replies, I'm probably not going as deep as you imagine I might Matthew, sorry anyway:

I was watching a program called Conspiracy Road Trip, on this episode they took Creationists on a journey thru West coast USA to present evidence of evolution to them and that it took era's of time to form the earth we see today.

One of the stop's was at Grand Canyon and they asked how could the flood cause this and they pointed out sedimentary stratification and winding gorges as evidence of time and flowing rivers, the successive rise and fall of oceans was proposed as the main cause of sediment stratification. (and actually just recently I found this http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm explains that concept very well (and simply).

Another stop was at some place, a valley but I can't remember the name, where they find fossil skulls of 'humans' from different era's buried in the sedimentary rocks. They explained to the creationists that the skulls of early humans are found in the deep layers and the more modern ones are higher up the strata relative to their age. They explained that the deep strata was the oldest and that if all humans were made at the same time then one would expect to find all the skull in the same strata or evenly distributed throughout all the strata.

The creationists felt a bit silly and a bit bullied since they felt they were up against unfair competition i.e. they as ordinary folk were asked to make a counter argument against non creationists who were experts in their fields. I kind of felt they had a point!

Anyway at the time I was dying to ask the question "How does the sedimentary stratification form"? "Does it take a lot of time and is it presented to us in chronological order in terms of layer depth or is that just a convenient assumption"?

So I was reading up about how sediments can stratify but was probably using the wrong key words and phrases. So anyway I found two interesting explanation that seem pretty mainstream and neither relied on time to form layers but rather material properties, structural properties and external forces caused the stratification.

1) Particles or granules of varying size and /or density or structure e.g. solid or hollow plus some vibration will separate the particles into individual particles layers e.g. a rubber ball buried in sand will appear on the surface when there sand is shaken for a while. Or you will have noticed how all the nuts end up at the top of the box when you open a pack of Muesli and all the crumbs and dust at the bottom, which is waht you get on the one day of the year you decide to have a healthy breakfast and yer missus, who eats healthy everyday, has had the best of it before you..


2) Granules pouring down a slope. When granules run down a slope they separate into layers i.e. smallest at the bottom and largest at the top. A Hele-Shaw cell is used to show this phenomena.

So I was thinking are the bottom layers of sedimentary rocks always the oldest and are they always in chronlogical order because it would seem that unless the sediment solidified extremely quickly then the sediment would have plenty of opportunity to separate into a non temporal database of layers.

So I was also thinking if you took a whole bunch of these skulls of varying types and shook then up in a closed system like a valley or rolled them down a hill (or the side of a valley) wouldn't they end up in layers by size, density and structure rather than by age and wouldn't that layering be always the same?


Just wondering, probably get roasted but hey what fun!

Dave Smith

 

Dave, the short answer to your question is no. The reason being is that by the time the second layer comes over the first layer, the first layer is solid - not shakable. and then there are the beautiful examples of "uncomformities" - where huge amounts of time are missing; these occur where sedmients become eroded away by whatever action it might be, and then sedimentation starts again. A warning though: after massive tectonic events - eg the collision of the African plate with the Alpine-Himalayan plate (which formed ther Alps-Himalayas, some deposits are upside down (but they were not always upside down). I seem to remeber a structure in the Alps known as the "Morcla Napp", in which the deep sediments were younger that the shallow sediments - but they had been "bulldozed" this way by a massive tectonic event. Whatever other spurious arguments might try to demonstrate, tectonics is a fact, and is measurable by science that in not deniable by rational humans. Like evolution, it is a fact, though many details have yet to be determined. This is no different in science from saying that physiology is a fact, though details have yet to be determined. Please note that I am talking to you, I am not trying to invoke argument from elsewhere; there is no point in that sort of argument. Rob

 

Would you like to ponder on this;

Many eminent scientists including Hawking consider that mathematics and physical laws are entities in their own right and that they are immutable and eternal. That is they are discovered and not invented or brought about by human thought or reasoning. The computer uses algorithmic maths to predict outcomes using physical laws bounded by initial conditions. If the maths are real and the physical laws are real then the outcome or output data must also be real i.e. it exists as an entity.

If both maths and physical laws are real and necessarily real to enable the cosmos to operate then conversely the universe must be a cosmic computer that uses algorithmic maths to produce real entities and real actions in the universe. It might be postulated that the universe is an intelligent being or entity that operates and sustains itself.

There is a problem here though, algorithms by their definition must be complete i.e. they must have an output that is rational. There are some equations that are not computable they are unpredictable or undecidable, that is they have no predictable boundary or it cannot be decided if they are true or false. If a computer were to experience one of these then it would come to a stop or just continue forever with no output.

Such numbers and equations are in fact quite common but computer programming avoids the use or the unbounded use of them. One of these is Pi which is indefinite since it has a computation with infinite decimal places but in an algorithm a predetermined maximum number of decimal places can be set.

In the universe or cosmic computer the decimal places of Pi cannot be predetermined since there is no outside agent to do so. The computing power of the universe is limited by it's boundaries or rather the boundary defined by limit of light emitted outward from celestial bodies has travelled. This is because information required to run the algorithms can only be gathered from inside the limit of the universal boundaries.

Therefore, if the computing power is limited then the ability to compute the infinite number of decimal places is limited then the circumference of a circle and all other algorithmic outputs relying og Pi would be uncertain i.e. the geometry of the universe and everything within it would be uncertain.

This uncertainty may be very small today but 4 billion years ago the universe would be much smaller and so the computing power would proportionally be very much smaller and the geometry and other laws would become highly uncertain.

At the point just after big bang the universe was only a few microns in diameter and so had no real computing power and so could not run any algorithms at all. Therefore no algorithms no physical laws and so would not be able to operate or sustain itself. On top of this the maths and physical laws are no longer immutable or eternal and do not even exist. If they do not exist then it is impossible for the universe to exists and yet it does! Mystery eh? Or not:

Imagine if you could design a computer that was so powerful that it could, by algorithmic progression, produce self replicating entities within itself and these self replicating entities would also replicate the information required for the next generation to replicate itself ad infinitum. Imagine that as these entities evolve over aeons of time until they are self aware. Then their 'life', to them, would be as real as yours, mine and ours is to us. This is not so far off you can down load an app called Life Game or look up Conway's Game of Life - the cellular automaton.
Now these 'life forms' could over time discover much about their environment. The laws are the software and their universe started at some point. They could discover everything within their containment even perhaps when it started by using the physical laws that, by their perception, immutably and eternally exist there but it would be absolutely impossible to discover anything outside their containment since they and just as, or even more importantly their physical laws cannot exist outside of it.

Furthermore (but not too much more you'll be glad to hear) the person, maybe it was you, who created the original program would know everything about the lifeforms and their environment and its design and its containment system and everything outside of of it and the physical laws within it. It would be very likely that the physical laws within the system would be very similar to those in your world, the creators world, since if they were not then you the creator would not be able to recognise any physical laws that did not exist in your own world since the way you conceive and perceive things are also governed by those laws. The creators laws are the 'life form's' laws and so although to the life forms the universal laws appear to disappear at the time of creation they are, by the perception of the creator (and in reality if you like) continuous and unbroken or immutable and eternal.

How long would this chain of event go on, how many times? perhaps at some point there would be an immutable eternal being who embodied and was synonymous with immutable and eternal laws that would permeate throughout every universe in the chain.

I would love to say this is original thought but really I have been reading a lot lately, mainly science books by agnostic Paul Davies, The Mind of God and God and The New Physics plus God and Stephen Hawking, Whose Design is it Anyway. These ideas above are extrapolated, postulated or directly exported from them.

Regards Dave (happy pondering - its ponderous stuff)

 

I will leave all that theoretic stuff to you Dave! I wil stick to my evolutionary studies! Rob

 

Rob wrote

Rob,
I can't imagine for one minute that you are happy to just accept evolution as a bald fact and then define evolutionary studies as merely the classification and categorisation of the manifestation of its action. That's just a nice fossil collection (on many levels).

Isn't the purpose of evolutionary theory to consider the beginning of life forms and their ability to replicate and to pass on the information to be able to replicate and change in response to the immediate environment. I think the model described may be a window into that aspect.

Would you say that evolution is governed by physical laws or is a series of entirely random events in response to random environmental changes?

Regards Dave

 

Let's go slowly here - the minute I feel that I am being dragged into a creationist trap - I am out of here. Let us start at the beginning: evolution is a fact, do not fall for any of the creationist clap trap. What are theories (in the scientific sense, not the "I have an idea" sense) are the very many mechanisms used to describe evolutionary change. Darwin's natural selection is but one of these, though it is cited by the creationist all the time.

I normally refuse to go there - but I will do this once. Theism - of whatever variety, is an untestable hypotheis; that is, it is an act of faith (mind you, so is atheism............). Thus, any argument for this is not scientific, and has no part in a scientifica debate. Right, said my piece, not going there again, for you, or for any other person on this arena.

Now if we are prepared to move from "if evolution" to "how evolution", I will continue - otherwise, I am out of here to look for science.

I work in palaeoanthropology; I do not question evolution, I measure it - I measure it's rate of change, and I measure its effects (in morphological change in humans & prehumans): other palaeo people work in other species - some of the best examples are in Chiclid fish from East Africa, of the Silver Sword alliance of plants in the Central pacific.

So, if you want a sensible conversation about human evolution, and in particular their feet, I am in there like Flynn. But to debate "whether evolution is" - take that to the pseudo scientists - masquerading as real scientist.

Sorry to be so blunt, but I have had a gut full recently of the obstructionist arguments delivered with apparent gusto by the perpetrators of creationist dogma. And just in case you doubt, while I am an agnostic, one of my closest friends is a Baptist minister, who I used to wheel in every year to my anatomy class to deliver a lecture on "how to rationalise evolution vs Christianity (note I did not say creationism) - even he would not go there.

Persons close to this argument seem to be looking for a "quick fix" argument - such as you allude to above re: "Would you say that evolution is governed by physical laws or is a series of entirely random events in response to random environmental changes?" Nothing is that simple, and I am far from an expert at all issues in evolutionary theories - yes, plural, far more than one. In my humble opinion, the answer is yes, and yes, some are, some are not - no quick fix.

The evidence for evolution (and leave humans out if you wish, it does not change the story), is overwhelming. I am surprised that anyone with a science tertiary education can even think otherwise - though that is not to say that loads of details are yet to be sorted out.

If I get a load of creatonist clap trap back from this, I will consider carefully whether I can be bothered to continue to try to contribute the body of knowledge on this arena.

Sorry - had a rough day - in dissection this morning the other staff simply did not turn up; I had 45 students on my own..............

Rob

 

... a Baptist minister, who I used to wheel in every year to my anatomy class to deliver a lecture on "how to rationalise evolution vs Christianity (note I did not say creationism) - even he would not go there...

Funny, I evolved from being a Baptist Minister into a Podiatrist! I strongly suspect that, in my case, some will feel that the evolution process must have had a glitch along the line

Appreciated the last post Rob.

 

Rob

I kind of wondered if my last post sounded a bit challenging when it was meant to be questioning you as an authority i.e. honouring your knowledge by asking you.

Now as a Christian I often find it difficult to reconcile faith as it comes up against the clap trap of religion and dogma and the elegant logic of science.
Previously as an atheist though, I was taken to the threshold of theism and acceptance of God by my formal study of science and also reading Popper, Paul Davies, Hawking, Dawking, John Adam, John Lennox and many others that I can't recall right now.
As a Christian I struggle with the dichotomy between faith and human experience and reasoning and go back to science reading all those eminent thinkers again and surprisingly find that their logical, elegant scientific theories take me right back to the blindingly obvious revelation of God and His works.

I understand that you don't want to get into endless (and what you see a worthless) debate about this but I also am quite amazed that people who study science in depth don't recognise what I see and came to see as a plainly obvious truth. I also understand why they wouldn't because I also can suffer all to easily from cognitive dissonance - Stalemate eh!

Regards and thanks Dave

 

Well, not as such, stalemate - well, not really. And that is because of this. While I have been, and will continue to be, a serious critic of creationism (or its many disguises eg intelligent design), I have never, and will never criticise faith. Surely - Please surely we see the differences? I have Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc kids through my lab all day every day - but I never once have made any inroad into their faith. Just don't interfere with my science! Rob

 

Apapro of nothing, when I was a pod practitioner, in the middle to late 1970's, I did all my post grad in Scotland as a part of the Scot post grad group. One of our members was a guy called Flemming - he was a minister of some sort, and a grand fellow. while I gre up in /southg Manchest, my genes atre Scottish - Dad was Hugh McPherson Kidd, I am Robert Stewart McPerson Kidd; in my sould, I am Scottish............

 

Interesting program title: “Conspiracy Road Trip”... seems like a fitting title by the sound of it! I too have been through this region (Arizona – Utah), through Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, Mexican Hat, Goblin Valley etc... I see evidence for catastrophe – massive erosion & deposition/sedimentation events... & tectonic events. The evidence/data is there – it just depends what world view glasses you wish to use to interpret the geology i.e. an evolution/uniformitarian/slow process framework or a catastrophe/fast erosion & deposition/sedimentation framework. It is largely an historical interpretation; however, recent events such as the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption do give us clues as well as various catastrophic regional flood events around the world as to the reproducibility of similar geologic formations. Let’s not also forget that a very large percentage of the earth is covered with sedimentary rock.

The above areas (i.e. Grand Canyon) are great research areas. When analysing them you really do have to seriously question the uniformitarian reasoning behind the above geological areas. For example:

- the widespread layering (strata) of sedimentary material, with evidence for rapid burial via the presence of “unconformities” (which reveal little associated erosion i.e. chemical erosion) thus short time between subsequent strata formation (hence not millions of years).

- evidence of massive tectonic upheaval as well as the formation of tight/bent strata formation which reveal no evidence of fracturing – hence was formed/folded whilst in a soft state.

- evidence for a rapid erosion event which does not reflect the uniformitarian models. Evidence of well preserved fossils fossilised in a particular direction (i.e. north – south) indicating very strong current in a particular direction & subsequent rapid burial.

- evidence the area (Arizona – Utah) was covered by an ocean at one point – thus likely the continent (i.e. large presence of marine fossils in limestone at altitude).

- history of unreliable dating methods i.e. radio isotope dating of various layers/strata.

Well that’s based on their evolutionary/uniformitarian interpretation of the geology; besides, they can’t have it both ways (I know they like to)... they then may like to explain why some fossil characteristics (i.e. a particular fish) are also found in just one strata level only (which shouldn’t by evolution reasoning) as well as all these fossils positioned/pointing in the same direction (i.e. north-south)... as well as being well preserved. They then may like to explain the inconsistencies of the radio isotope dating results between strata (& tectonic upheaval doesn’t/can't explain all cases).

They may also like to explain why marine fossils are prevalently found in altitude regions including the top of Mount Everest & once again, very well preserved in these regions (hence rapid burial – as we all know, these organisms don’t stay preserved to long in an open environment). Yes, I know about tectonic upheaval forces playing a part here as well (but at this extent?).

Yes David, this happens quite a bit in this area. Agenda driven individuals of evolutionary persuasion (i.e. program directors) like to pin lay people against their evolutionary experts in an attempt to belittle their point of view & win over their view in biased fashion. It is here where you get misrepresentation of the creation perspective as well as made to look “silly” discussing topics they know little about. This tactic can have varying consequences... one of which is the development of straw man versions of creationism floating around, of which Rob has been guilty of subscribing to. It’s a bit like me picking which competitors I wish to compete against in a running race... & picking individuals I know I could beat. Or some group (i.e. somewhat informed bare foot running enthusiast) picking a G.T based Podiatrist to have a battle of wits over running biomechanics & running footwear issues.

However, you very rarely have informed creation scientists allowed to be involved in such evolutionary driven game plays. On the other hand, you do get creation scientists invite discussion for their evolutionary counterparts in an attempt to provide balanced opinion on an even playing field – but they tend to oddly decline on the offer (as seems to be happening here)..........



Hi Rob... this is not a “creationist trap” as you have eluded to... just legitimate inquiry:

Yes, there are plenty of examples of “unconformities” in the strata layers Rob – too many for uniformitarianism to effectively explain (with lack of associated weathering & erosion i.e. channelling). A good example is The Great Unconformity present in the Grand Canyon. Your above reasoning to this event is largely bankrupt. Why? Well why is it we don’t see the degree of erosion that should be present in the speculated time frame between strata levels? Some unconformities are speculated to have half a billion years missing yet mark chemical & physical erosion should be evident within this time frame – it is not. We should be seeing a lot more evidence of erosion associated with unconformities... yet we usually see flat planes. Hence the observation/evidence is pointing towards a catastrophic model & thus a short time frame between strata/layer formations.

What “spurious arguments” are these... the ones you choose to ignore &/or can’t answer. Why do you continue harping on the issue of tectonics... how many times does it take to tell you that creationists do believe & research on tectonic activity – thus you can now drop this straw man version of this dialogue & of creationists views. The only evidence for “spurious” round here seems to be your reasoning.

Make unsubstantiated statements Rob & you will get inquiry from me (don’t chose to see it as an “argument” or a “creationist trap”). Please state these “facts” in evolution Rob. How can you honestly put evolution in the same light as physiology? I can observe, analyse & perform repeatable tests on the principles of physiology! Tell me how evolution can be assessed in the same manner? [& please don't provide examples of natural selection]

For Pete’s sake then – what are these mechanisms you are wanting to ascribe to the driving force of molecules to man evolution Rob. I have asked this question on at least 3 occasions on this thread. Please don’t insult my, your (& everyone else’s) intelligence by attempting to con viewers here that “natural selection” is a chief driving force, or that the likes of “mutations” are (if so thousands, if not hundreds of examples should be readily available). I have been through this before. Natural selection does not have the creative capabilities to gain the information needed for the variety of the life forms we see. Natural selection is a selective (&/or adaptive) process only (selecting information from the current genome pool) – hence natural selection generates no new genetic information (new functional coding). Thus natural selection involves losing, shuffling/reorganisation/modifying of pre-existing functional coded elements. Yet gaining new functional coded elements added to the genome is what’s required time & time again if this process is to be a driving mechanism behind this hypothesis/conjecture. Please don’t use equivocation (ambiguous/misleading terms) tactics when describing your driving mechanism for an information generating process in an attempt to substantiate the plausibility of evolution.

If you have paid attention to the course of this thread Rob you would have realised that I have stated that some topics have more of a place in philosophy discussion rather than science discussion – however, there will be some overlap. Topics invoking theism/metaphysics are one example as well as the historical assumptions/interpretations of origins - naturalism & subsequently evolution. I have provided clear & reasoned views on this hence no point repeating it here. Darwinian evolution doesn’t deserve the science pedestal it has been given... the crux of its principles belong in philosophy.

You have just supported a confirmation bias (more info) approach to the discussion. Rob, we’ve already discussed the relationship of scientific reproducibility (i.e. the crux of this thread) with relation to evolution earlier in this thread. So now you want to play by your rules only by only answering questions about evolution’s “if” factor... not the “how” factor (that’s not an objective approach to scientific enquiry!) Remember... science should set out to rigorously eliminate bias, not to assert it (which is what you are guilty of above).

May the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” (evolutionary in-joke there) give me strength! “Measure” – how? Maybe that’s part of the problem Rob – you... “do not question evolution” – you take it for granted to be true – hence you are biased (submit to confirmation bias in your methodology) to a belief which subsequently helps you justify the fact you think you can “measure it’s rate of change... measure its effects” . Please tell me how you relate this to... “morphological change in humans & prehumans” [sic]. I’m really interested in this one. Are you alluding to radiometric dating here by any chance?

A… “sensible conversation about human evolution “ – we’ve been there Rob (in another thread) – remember… the Talus bone of afarensis (Australopithecine)... & the issue of bipedalism (then there is the wrist structure... in relation to knuckle walking). If you cannot offer some proof that Homo sapiens (humans) are in some way descendent to some primate form, or even that evolution is a “fact”, then you will be considered “pseudo” yourself... & not taken seriously. However, if you want to have an adult/”sensible” conversation, then bring it on - but bring some valid points, reliable research, evidence - not just what you think, your world view... without credible reasoning. Many evolutionary ‘evangelists’ wish to knock down straw man versions of creation, rather than address real arguments presented by informed creation scientists.

Well I’ve had a “gut full” of precious “evolutionists” who try whinging their way to claiming & maintaining the academic high ground but can’t answer what should be basic questions when the environment gets tougher or more academic to their liking. Then one has to put up with this evolution dogma recited by the media in regurgitory fashion.

Also, I provided the opinion of Dr. Dawkins (in a video in post # 32) relating to those Christians who also want to try & marry evolution to the Genesis account – his words were... “they are deluded”... & in common sense & logic – I agree with him.

No “quick fix” Rob - just answers... that’s all. The course of this dialogue is here for all to see. You haven’t provided them. You spent most of your time either whinging about the nature of the discussion, misrepresenting others ... setting up straw man scenarios for you to conveniently knock down/mock... whilst not answering some basic fundamental questions for a topic which apparently has evidence which is, as you go on to say is... “overwhelming”...

So the “evidence for evolution is overwhelming” – great – let’s have it! I’ve left high school science behind Rob & started thinking for myself - & have the courage to at least endeavour to head where the evidence leads without fearing childish peer pressure & resorting to childish antics...

Rob – you haven’t taken a page out of Lance Armstrong’s book have you? ... i.e. not wanting to answer what appear to be arduous questions in the face of mounting evidence. Once again, I have asked what should be basic fundamental questions here Rob – they have not been answered! – OK Rob. Questions which are the crux mechanism for evolution to work & hence be plausible in the real world – hence should be quite easily recited back in a post with real world evidence. I asked for that “smoking gun” at the start of this thread – I haven’t got it – in fact I can’t see any attempts at a sincere answer at all. Why not? To be honest with you – I’m asking to be converted – I want the evidence... but I’m not going to follow a belief system devoid of logic, evidence & reasoning which requires greater faith than the alternative (Intelligence based) position... I don’t wish to base my existence & purpose on a lie.

I have been patient & have tried to be fair Rob... & you have submitted with the above natured dialogue in return. I am aware that the issues involved are controversial & have a history of generating frustration from either side of the fence (hence understand your frustration). Subsequently, my assumption is that you haven’t appropriately answered because you can’t provide credible answers... at this point in time.

Thus it would seem at this point in time...

 

Bye - I am out of here. I am too tired to be bother sorting out the nonsense in the above post. Bye

 

Yes, well that makes the two of us Rob. I'm sure we have more productive things to do with our time... than bother with “nonsense” (yet I put in the effort to provide reasoning for my views). I really do question whether conversations of this nature on this type of medium are futile... at least between participating parties. However, lurkers may get something out of it.

It would seem to be more productive milking answers via other mediums/from other sources... where civility & enlightenment is exercised in both directions. Answers of which one would be excused for thinking should be more forthcoming of a so deemed "theory"... of such history.

Bye & all the best Rob!

 

Matthew

might I suggest that you penultimate post to Bob was a little long and over"quoted"? You might had got more out of him in bite size pieces. IMHO

ATB

Ian Reilly

 

hi David

can you expnd on "plainly obvious truth"?

cheers

Ian

 

I'm definitely not going to jump into this lively discussion about religion and science, but the late Charles Schultz, creator of the Peanuts comic strip, did have a great quote that I think may help many of you when considering discussing such subjects with those who you want to remain cordial with.

 

Dear Kevin,

At last a man of courage and conviction has brought the 'Great Pumpkin' into the discussion. But what about the Great Pumpkin Pi? Those of us of a more scientific bent find that philosophy far more palatable.

MathFobwy.

Bill

 

I should explain - the Great Pumpkin Pi is a cliquish Scottish expression centered around the mining villages in Fife and Mid Lothian in which its "ingredients" are essentially the three forbidden fruits - religion, politics and sex - never to be discussed at any time except after what is commonly referred to as "a session" (and I'm sure Rob Kidd will remember a few of those in his time up north) when they would become the sole essential part of every conversation. If you had the courage and conviction, that is!

 

Yes, I see your point Ian & was aware of this potential at the time... however, the writing was already on the wall (so to speak) before my "penultimate post". Anyway, I thought there was much to clarify on – thus went ahead with a long post. Yet, I did want to avoid this path - invoking frustration (well that was my intentions) but like I said in my previous post... maybe these type of discussions are probably best not discussed on this type of medium where sincere intentions on controversial topics can & does get lost in translation.

That's quite a famous saying Kevin... with various versions of it (putting aside the “Great Pumpkin”) where religion & politics are always mentioned out of the three topics. However, I must state that the ensuing discussion was not about "religion & science". It was about evidence & science (as keeping in line with the original article in question i.e. reproducibility of scientific evidence). It was about the interpretation of evidence... assessing the same evidence but from at least two opposing perspectives. I avoid religion (as stated - I don't like it), avoid discussing it (unless aspects of which are asked of me), but unfortunately it will always raise its ugly head & find its way in discussions of the above nature (usually initiated by one in the evolution/naturalism camp) due to the metaphysical connections of having a "beginner entity" (invoking intelligence via evident design & subsequent purpose) as the origin to the universe & biogenesis... as opposed to having nothing – naturalism (at this point no beginner cited, subsequently no intelligence allowed with the result process being unguided/random & with no known purpose).

I just find the above aspects interesting & sincerely want to nut out some answers. I’m intrigued by the controversy/conspiracy (use the word “conspiracy” due to some strange aspects behind the topic that some may not be aware of or considered) that seems to surround the topic. Maybe others don’t have the same interest from the perspective I’m coming from, maybe others haven’t considered this direction/perspective... maybe I’m a bit odd . Anyway, I would like to remain “cordial” [:drinks] with those with differing opinion to mine & had no intentions on invoking animosity. I must admit I do get a wee bit frustrated when one who is of the non-naturalism persuasion (thus questions Darwinian evolution) is usually automatically thrown in the “nut bag” basket (to say the very least) when there is usually little consideration of the informed alternatives out there & subsequently the reasons (hence why my posts were often longish) why some have come to this perspective... on a topic which really should be one of the (if not the) most important topic to humanity. Maybe the answers to these questions should be considered a journey & not a race. Anyhow, I don’t want to get carried away again. I’ll leave it here.

All the best,
Matt...

 

Oh dear... I LOVE to talk about religion, but i should probably declare by bias as an atheist at this point. Looking fwd to the discussion (if we are allowed...)

Ian

 

Ian

A formal definition of "plainly obvious truth" might be 'Axiom'

Axiom - A statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true even though it is unproven. It can also be defined as a starting point for reasoned argument like Evolution and Big Bang.

In this case I was expressing a personal conclusion that however I investigate the origin of life and the cosmos a creators name was stamped all over it whether I had started from that agenda or not.

If you're asking can I explain what the plainly obvious truth is then it is a god,
the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God in particular although the latter being a conclusion drawn from science and faith and the consistency between the Bible and philosophy of science.

If you would like to know how the philosophy of science brings me to the conclusion of a plainly obvious truth and to the threshold of faith in Christ then I would be pleased to do that, ( there may be large groans around the planet right now )however my post on the 15th Oct 12.42am gives a good insight into that philosophical pathway.

But here's another glimpse:

Robert Boyle (Boyle's law) and William Paley (theologian) tell of the the analogy of the watch found on a heath and, by observing its intricacies the natural conclusion is that the watch was made by a craftsman and not assembled by some innate, stochastic or random process. David Hume (natural scientist and philosopher) complains that an analogous argument is not proof or a logical reason to believe the proposition. John Leslie (Philosopher) muses, " if only the world where littered with granite rock stamped with 'made by God' then surely this would convince the Humes of this world" Paul Davies (Prof Nat Philosophy) comments "It can be asked whether every conceivable piece of seeming evidence of divine creativity, including for instance messages written in the structures of naturally occurring chain molecules, would be shrugged off with the comment, 'Nothing improbable in that!

NB. Notice I said conclusion and threshold of truth and not actual faith because I don't believe that any scientific argument can bring about faith only the understanding of a probability and probability isn't faith.

Regards Dave Smith

 

thanks for your reply David. I should be wary of discussing points I am only partially familiar with... and with people who are clearly more intelligent than me... but this rarely stops me .

ok - i sort of get the one God bit (which a Muslim friend of mine tells me originates in Egyptian lore). First biggie: Like me, you are actually an atheist. Of all the Gods ever worshiped (2000 plus) you dont believe in all the others. That makes you an atheist! I just believe in one God less than you .... but.... What makes you right, and the Hindu?Pagan, etc, .... wrong? You cant all be right :dizzy:

Ian

 

Yes I've noticed that but hardly surprising that it seems that way seeing as the Jews were part of Egyptian society for millenia. In his time Joseph was second in command to the Pharaoh you know. My opinion is that God gave His people, the Jews, who were set apart for Him like a bride for a groom, rules and law that were intentionally not totally foreign to them but would make them people special and set apart special by their complete adherence to them and the familiarity would ensure their ability to be readily understood and assimilated into their culture.


RedNice try but its a logical fallacy, fallacious To believe in any god makes you a theist or deist whether its one or 101.
Purple Again fallacious, just because all of us can't be right doesn't mean all of us are wrong.

Anyway what we really should be discussing is the evidence or reasoning that brings us to our separate conclusions about the origins of life and the cosmos.

Time for bed early start tomorrow

regards Dave

 

RedNice try but its a logical fallacy, fallacious To believe in any god makes you a theist or deist whether its one or 101.
Purple Again fallacious, just because all of us can't be right doesn't mean all of us are wrong.

Anyway what we really should be discussing is the evidence or reasoning that brings us to our separate conclusions about the origins of life and the cosmos.

Time for bed early start tomorrow

regards Dave[/QUOTE]

just a quick response b4 we move onto evidence... yes, that all of you cant be right doesn't mean all of you are wrong BUT you must concede that SOME of the theist/deists must be wrong!

Off to read Dawkins now so we can discuss the evidence

 

If I am getting it right, the amount of bad science in the following areas: biology, geology, evolution, ice core data, physics and astrophysics and probably other areas, is so great that it undermines at least, those areas of science related to 'origins,' sometimes, to such an extent that the whole of that particular area of science, should be binned?

Is this level of 'bad science' peculiar to those areas that are related to 'origins' or can we reasonably extrapolate this view to all science, ie all science is so flawed that we should bin it?

If that part of science, which doesn't touch upon origins, is more reliable than that part that does focus on 'origins' how did the most inept scientists end up in areas related to origins?

Bill

 

Bill

There are two answers here and neither of them equate to bad science.

The first is that it depends on what Axiom you are working to or from. In other words because empirical experiments can't be done then conclusions are abducted from the available evidence in terms of that axiom i.e. there is a severe bias toward a certain conclusion of direction of reasoning toward a conclusion that is almost predetermined by the pre existing assumptions.

So the fact that at some time in history people believed that the sun and stars went round the earth to create night and day was not bad science i.e. they used the technology and science available in that day and came to a conclusion, in terms of the prevalent axiom and with great sincerity, that the earth was the centre of the universe. Science and to some extent philosophy has always made statements about origin, order, process and mechanism of the universe based on the technology of the day and the prevalent or major axioms of the day. Plato's forms, Aristotals living universe, Descarte's reasoning above the empirical, Leibniz and Newton's mechanical analogies and today the super computer all were and are used to give intuitive life to the universe each were useful and each has fallen to the the latest theory and remodelling of the ultimate axiom. None were engaged in deceit none were deliberately biased toward the model of the day but never the less they did not describe an ultimate truth and were superseded.

Maths today, made supernormal almost supernatural by computer modelling power, has superseded experience and mathematical deduction based on established axioms leads from established truth to predicted truth and that predicted truth often is reflected in the action of natural forces, begging the question how does that come about? How does nature understand maths and how come we are able to enter into a communication with nature using its mathematical code?

However the while the mathematical conclusions are deducted from rational application of axiomatic logic the conclusion about reality or a concept of reality is abducted from the imagined and predetermined initial conditions necessary to set the maths on the course towards that destination.

Maths requires rationality and finds contingency difficult to deal with. Euclidean maths requires strong axiomatic foundations and is shaken a little by Reinmanns hyperbolic geometry of curved space even so this still requires rationality.

Extract from a paper by Bonnie Shulman

Modern mathematics is based on the axiomatic method. We choose axioms and a deductive system -- rules for deducing theorems from the axioms. This methodology is designed to guarantee that we can proceed from "obviously" true premises to true conclusions, via inferences which are "obviously" truth-preserving. The study of this method is itself a branch of mathematics called Foundations, an appropriate metaphor, as the mathematicians who initiated this field were attempting to reconstruct mathematics on a secure basis. This quest for certainty, the desire for an ultimate guarantor of Truth unsituated in time, space or history, the dream of order, regularity, repeatability, predictability, and the ideal of a "pure" disembodied reason that is the hallmark of western mathematics, was bequeathed to us by the early Greeks. This mind-independent knowledge is usually called "objective." The salient properties of objective knowledge are its impersonality, verfiability, (en)durability, and transcendence. According to one mathematician, RH (on a recent e-mail discussion list):

Anything that doesn't have these attributes is not knowledge. I don't think of math as "objective"; I think of it as true. I don't see that the "subject" enters into the subject at all. We represent in an innocent pure context-free way as far as we can, because that is the way to the truth. In possessing the truth there is power. If we cease to represent things in an innocent, context-free way (for example, if we start special pleading for political causes) we lose access to the truth and access to power.
This is the vision of a mathematics that "sets the standard of objective truth for all intellectual endeavors."

Critics have challenged this fantasy of "self-empowerment through purity and control." They have contested the belief that it is possible (or even desirable) to arrive at any knowledge that is completely context-free, independent of who knows what and when. New and interesting questions arise if we give up as myth the claim that our theorizing can ever be separated out from the complex dynamic of interwoven social/political/historical/cultural forces that shape our experiences and views. Considering mathematics as a set of stories produced according to strict rules, one can read these stories for what they tell us about the very real human desires, ambitions, and values of the authors (who understands) and listen to the authors as spokespersons for their cultures (where and when). This paper is the self-reflective and self-conscious attempt of a mathematician to re-tell a story of mathematics that attends to the relationships between who we are and what we know. Bonnie Shulman - From: What if we change our Axioms? A Feminist enquiry into the foundation of mathematics - Configurations Volume 4, Number 3, Fall 1996 pp. 427-451 | 10.1353/con.1996.0022

Maths and its offshoots, are reliant on immutable laws of physics (rationality), which predict origin, past, present and future models of the cosmos based on the reliability of physical laws. Contingent laws are not allowed even tho it is entirely possible they may exists outside our experience (they certainly could be imagined).

If therefore if you argue for the immutability of physical laws that set the initial conditions for maths which is rational and so it conclusions are predetermined even tho unknown as yet to the thinker.

The problem here is that you have to ask, once again, how such order comes about and as those same physical laws and maths predict origin and not eternal existence then how was this immutability created.

Do you think that order was initiated at the origin of the universe? Most would say not! Penrose and Hawking suggest the most popular explanation of space time and matter all being co reliant, they are bound together and as gravity compressed everything to 'nothing' time space and matter disappeared . Without time space and matter there are no physical laws and no maths to unfold them. Nothing works, at least in the way we understand today so how did physical laws, and the order they instil, come about? Therefore one must imagine Chaos at the start.

If you argue that order must have come out of chaos you must then admit that contingency was very real and is a very real probability today and therefore at some point physical laws cannot be immutable. If anything can happen then anything will happen eventually and making linear projection in any direction is useless. Therefore the theories of science are always open to contingency and the possibility of anything and the realisation of new axioms.

The second point (if there was only one in the former ) For someone to propose some other probability in the light of the above may not seem so preposterous or as black and white as bad science or right and wrong or crazy versus rational.

Some might have a different perspective to propose that gives insight that is apart from pure logic although it happens that ultimately this position is the most logical of all. Some can argue its impossibility but what is impossible in this universe and outside it in the light of infinite contingency or beyond nothing?

As an analogy lets say that we all have a ladder to climb, some of us have had a glimpse of what is at the top and others only see the part of the ladder that they stand on. There is never a ladder with one rung at the top because then it would be impossible to climb.

The scientist, secular or theist, looks at the ladder and says ' how did it get here, how is it made, what are its properties, what is the nature of a ladder, as is the nature of humans, and they sit and ponder on their rung until they discover enough to move to the next, climbing slowly as we all do for some reason or another. Quite a few forget or never even consider how it is that the ladder is symmetrical and just right for humans to climb or has no rungs missing and always goes up, in one direction.

Now suppose that as I said before one of them has had a glimpse of the top and what was there. Mine eyes have seen the Glory of the coming of the Lord goes the popular hymn They could proceed with confidence, they could climb the ladder and rest a while from time to time to consider all the latest rational theories and collaborate and participate and enjoy their usefulness in life. All the time though one would have the confidence of knowing the ultimate truth that the ladder leads to. Climbing with confidence they would not be worried about someone proving them wrong and so would have no need to get angry or defensive to protect their position. They would however be eager to explain the ultimate destination of all climbers if only to hasten their journey but ultimately so they could enjoy the confidence while climbing..

Regards Dave Smith