Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 676 of 708 (770717)
10-13-2015 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 675 by Straggler
10-11-2015 7:04 PM


Re: What Do you Mean???????????
Straggler writes:
But if we used the video evidence to track, locate and capture the creature in question could we then determine whether the specimen at hand is X or Y?
That's what I'd like JRTjr01 to think about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 675 by Straggler, posted 10-11-2015 7:04 PM Straggler has not replied

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 677 of 708 (771377)
10-25-2015 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 674 by ringo
10-10-2015 11:52 AM


Guy in suit or something else?????
Dear Ringo,
Great hearing from you again.
Ringo writes:
What process do you use to decide whether it's a guy in a Bigfoot suit or "something else"?
If I may, I would like to refine this question by using a ‘real world’ example:
This clip is known as the ‘Patterson footage’. It appears to be a Sasquatch strolling down a path.
So, the question is. Is this an actual animal undiscovered by the scientific community? or is this a Hoax (a man in a suit.); and how do we determine the truth?
The short answer is: Insufficient information.
Sorry to disappoint, however, in some cases there simply is not enough information to make a definitive decision.
I have seen many documentaries that featured this footage over the years. (I love documentaries; especially of ‘X Creatures’ and UFO’s).
Now, if we can determine that it is a man in a suit then we can rule out a real Bigfoot; would you not agree?
However, there is a twist to this story. If we can rule out a ‘man in a suit’ is this therefore ‘proof’ of Bigfoot? Or could this be another creature that has (as of yet) not been cataloged by scientists.
For the purposes of this discussion, however, and with your permission, I’d like to confine the possibilities to: (a) a man in a suit or (b) a Sasquatch {I.e. Bigfoot}.
So, where to start?
This is where Logic, reasoning and scientific methodology come into play.
I start off with a version of the scientific method: {Any rendition of the scientific method could be used}
1. Correctly identify the frame of Reference.
2. Determine the initial conditions.
3. Perform an experiment, or observe the phenomenon noting what takes place, and when and where.
4. Note the final conditions.
5. Form an hypothesis.
6. Test the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations.
{Taken from copies of transparencies use in the lecture series Biblical Paradoxes
by Dr. Hugh Ross}

First step says: Correctly identify the frame of Reference.
So, that would include gathering as much information as possible about the original film; where it was taken, when it was taken, and who took it, etc.
Second: Determine the initial conditions.
In this case; the fact that it was filmed in 1967 (the year before I was born by the way) is one of the ‘initial conditions’ so we can rule out the idea that this was a CGI hoax.
Third: Observe the phenomenon noting what takes place
In this case; watch the film. You may need to watch it several times; even subject it to different filters. And, since this film was taken 48 years ago, there are plenty of documentaries where others have subjected this film to analyses so you should delve into those pieces of data as well evaluating their validity.
Fourth: Note the final conditions
In this case; take everything you have gathered and all of the notes you have taken and collate them. {You did take notes; didn’t you? ;-}
Fifth: Form an hypothesis.
In this case; decide if you believe it is more likely that this is a ‘Real’ Sasquatch or is it more likely that it is a man in a suit.
And, finally: Test the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations.
In this case; let’s say I have formed the Hypothesis that this is an actual Sasquatch; I then would do experiments to see if I could disprove this hypothesis. Say, try to make a suit that matches the look and movement of [whatever it is] in the film (I.e. trying to replicate the motion and ‘feel’ of the original ‘thing’ in the film.)
Note here though, all of these steps have been followed and repeated by skeptics and believers alike and no definitive answer has been given in this particular case.
So, in some cases (actually in many cases) there is no definitive answer simply because we do not have sufficient information.
However, just because we may not have sufficient information to rule definitively on some, if not most, things does not mean we cannot rule definitively on anything.
Now, let’s contrast that video with this one.
Using the same methodologies, I can definitively say that this is a ‘man in a suit’ not a ‘Real’ Bigfoot.
So, even though we have not resolved whether or not Sasquatch are real we have methods that have helped us to not through our weight behind something just because it looks good.
As always great fun,
JRTjr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by ringo, posted 10-10-2015 11:52 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by ringo, posted 10-25-2015 2:37 PM JRTjr01 has replied
 Message 679 by Percy, posted 10-25-2015 2:50 PM JRTjr01 has replied
 Message 681 by Pressie, posted 10-26-2015 6:22 AM JRTjr01 has replied
 Message 684 by Pressie, posted 10-26-2015 7:26 AM JRTjr01 has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 678 of 708 (771378)
10-25-2015 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 677 by JRTjr01
10-25-2015 2:23 PM


Re: Guy in suit or something else?????
JRTjr01 writes:
Using the same methodologies, I can definitively say that this is a ‘man in a suit’ not a ‘Real’ Bigfoot.
Exactly how, though? What are the actual differences between the two videos that allow you to rule definitively on one and not the other? The second one is better quality - technology has improved a lot since 1967 - and CGI is a possibility today but you haven't shown any evidence that CGI was used. What's the fundamental difference between the two videos?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by JRTjr01, posted 10-25-2015 2:23 PM JRTjr01 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 686 by JRTjr01, posted 10-26-2015 10:44 AM ringo has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 679 of 708 (771379)
10-25-2015 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 677 by JRTjr01
10-25-2015 2:23 PM


Re: Guy in suit or something else?????
JRTjr01 writes:
Ringo writes:
What process do you use to decide whether it's a guy in a Bigfoot suit or "something else"?
If I may, I would like to refine this question by using a ‘real world’ example:
This clip is known as the ‘Patterson footage’. It appears to be a Sasquatch strolling down a path.
So, the question is. Is this an actual animal undiscovered by the scientific community? or is this a Hoax (a man in a suit.); and how do we determine the truth?
The short answer is: Insufficient information.
Sorry to disappoint, however, in some cases there simply is not enough information to make a definitive decision.
You've wandered off course again. The question wasn't, "If your only evidence is the Patterson footage, how do you tell whether it's a guy in a Bigfoot suit or 'something else'?" It was, "What process do you use to decide whether it's a guy in a Bigfoot suit or 'something else'?" It was just an example of the larger question, "How do you determine what is true?"
Assume you've captured Bigfoot. How do you determine whether it's really Bigfoot or just a guy in a Bigfoot suit? The answer is: an approach based on the scientific method. More generally, you carefully observe the real world and analyze the data. That's how you learn anything.
I start off with a version of the scientific method: {Any rendition of the scientific method could be used}
The scientific method at the Biblical Paradoxes lecture site is bogus.
First step says: Correctly identify the frame of Reference.
This is not a step in the scientific method.
Second: Determine the initial conditions.
This, too, is not a step in the scientific method.
You been told this repeatedly.
Third: Observe the phenomenon noting what takes place
This is an incomplete statement of your third step, too incomplete to be considered correct.
Fourth: Note the final conditions
This also is not a step of the scientific method.
No one's asking you to form conclusions from incomplete information. They're asking you what method you would use to learn what is true about the real world.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by JRTjr01, posted 10-25-2015 2:23 PM JRTjr01 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 687 by JRTjr01, posted 10-26-2015 11:40 AM Percy has replied

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 680 of 708 (771385)
10-25-2015 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 672 by Percy
10-09-2015 4:02 PM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
Dear Percy,
Hop this finds you well.
Percy writes:
The only one I've seen recently that was actually wrong was the one you provided from the Biblical Paradoxes lecture series.
Again you’ve stated it is wrong but have neglected to give any reasoning for why it is wrong. Did you even bother looking at my comparison?
Percy writes:
so now that you've read a number of different descriptions of the scientific method, you understand it doesn't include identifying a frame of reference or determining the initial conditions.
I can see that none of them spell out identifying a frame of reference or determining the initial conditions so, are you saying that we should not consider the frame of reference or initial conditions??
As far as I can see each of them infer these; As a matter of fact you used them in your version.
Percy writes:
"Salt is delivered to oceans in minute amounts by rivers and runoff from land, and over time it has become very salty."
Here you are both identifying a frame of reference and determining the initial conditions. So, if you are right that these two are not correct then I would suggest you quit using them in your methodology.
Percy writes:
I was mostly just trying to encourage you to cease being evasive and begin engaging the discussion.
Not trying to be unkind here, but, maybe you should read Ringo’s and my conversation from the beginning before suggesting that I am being evasive.
I have given him reasonable answers to the questions he has asked and instead of acknowledging them, whether or not he agrees with them, he just comes up with other questions (going in totally different directions) or tries to minimize the impact of the evidence presented.
On top of that he will say something, and when I point out the absurdity of his statement he will claim he meant something else by what he said; thus, my trying to get him to use a dictionary.
Thank you for your comments,
JRTjr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by Percy, posted 10-09-2015 4:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by Pressie, posted 10-26-2015 6:31 AM JRTjr01 has not replied
 Message 683 by Pressie, posted 10-26-2015 6:38 AM JRTjr01 has replied
 Message 690 by Percy, posted 10-26-2015 12:18 PM JRTjr01 has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 681 of 708 (771435)
10-26-2015 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 677 by JRTjr01
10-25-2015 2:23 PM


Re: Guy in suit or something else?????
JRTjr01 writes:
Now, if we can determine that it is a man in a suit then we can rule out a real Bigfoot; would you not agree?
If you can determine somehow that the footage was a man in a suit, you still can't rule out a real Bigfoot existing somewhere.
The question is: How would you go about determining a real Bigfoot from a false Bigfoot?
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by JRTjr01, posted 10-25-2015 2:23 PM JRTjr01 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 692 by JRTjr01, posted 10-26-2015 12:27 PM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 682 of 708 (771436)
10-26-2015 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 680 by JRTjr01
10-25-2015 4:07 PM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
TRTjr01 writes:
Here you are both identifying a frame of reference and determining the initial conditions. So, if you are right that these two are not correct then I would suggest you quit using them in your methodology.
No, he didn't. For example, it doesn't matter whether the sea started salty or not (initial conditions) , the sea still is salty today.
I suggest that you drop your bogus creationist 'scientific method'. It's bogus. An obvious lie about the scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 680 by JRTjr01, posted 10-25-2015 4:07 PM JRTjr01 has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 683 of 708 (771437)
10-26-2015 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 680 by JRTjr01
10-25-2015 4:07 PM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
TRTjr01 writes:
Again you’ve stated it is wrong but have neglected to give any reasoning for why it is wrong
Oh, I can. When I look at those black rocks in the Drakensberg and study them, I don't set initial conditions. I don't start identifying a frame of reference. I look at the rocks first. In the field. Under microscopes. In machines.etc. Then I start with hypotheses.
Your so-called "scientific method" is bogus.
TRTjr01 writes:
Did you even bother looking at my comparison?
Yes, I have. People advocating magic global floods during the last few thousand years are ridiculously stupid.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 680 by JRTjr01, posted 10-25-2015 4:07 PM JRTjr01 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 685 by JRTjr01, posted 10-26-2015 10:32 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 684 of 708 (771439)
10-26-2015 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 677 by JRTjr01
10-25-2015 2:23 PM


Re: Guy in suit or something else?????
TRTjr01 writes:
First step says: Correctly identify the frame of Reference.
Nope. That's not the first step in the scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by JRTjr01, posted 10-25-2015 2:23 PM JRTjr01 has seen this message but not replied

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 685 of 708 (771461)
10-26-2015 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 683 by Pressie
10-26-2015 6:38 AM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
I never said anything about 'Setting' "initial conditions".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 683 by Pressie, posted 10-26-2015 6:38 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 691 by Percy, posted 10-26-2015 12:24 PM JRTjr01 has not replied

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 686 of 708 (771463)
10-26-2015 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 678 by ringo
10-25-2015 2:37 PM


Re: Guy in suit or something else?????
Dear Ringo,
Great hearing from you again.
Ringo writes:
Exactly how, though? What are the actual differences between the two videos that allow you to rule definitively on one and not the other? The second one is better quality - technology has improved a lot since 1967 - and CGI is a possibility today but you haven't shown any evidence that CGI was used. What's the fundamental difference between the two videos?
You take your copy of the scientific method {Any rendition of the scientific method could be used}, use some logic, and work the problem; just as I demonstrated in my last post.
Good hunting,
JRTjr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 678 by ringo, posted 10-25-2015 2:37 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 688 by ringo, posted 10-26-2015 11:52 AM JRTjr01 has not replied

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2955 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 687 of 708 (771469)
10-26-2015 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 679 by Percy
10-25-2015 2:50 PM


Captain, we’ve strayed off course.
Dear Percy,
Please, stop, you making me laugh way too hard.
You’re chiding me for wandered off course and then concentrating on my use of a rendition of the scientific method!?!?!
Fine, you don’t like that one, so, use another one. I never claimed that the one I posted was ‘the Best’, ‘the only Right One’, ‘the Real One’, or the ‘Only Orthodox One’.
I like it, it works for me.
You think it’s ‘Wrong’/‘Bogus’ don’t use it ; I never said you had to.
As to wandering off course; we are so off course in this string already I have to keep reminding myself that the original question was:
Percy writes:
They're asking you what method you would use to learn what is true about the real world.
‘They’, whoever ‘They’ you are talking about, have not asked me this question; however, since you brought it up I’ll answer the question for you.
I use Logic, reasoning and scientific methodology to determine what is true, factual, correct, and real.
What do you use?
I pray you are having as much fun as I am,
JRTjr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 679 by Percy, posted 10-25-2015 2:50 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 689 by ringo, posted 10-26-2015 11:59 AM JRTjr01 has replied
 Message 693 by Percy, posted 10-26-2015 12:30 PM JRTjr01 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 688 of 708 (771473)
10-26-2015 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 686 by JRTjr01
10-26-2015 10:44 AM


Re: Guy in suit or something else?????
JRTjr01 writes:
You take your copy of the scientific method {Any rendition of the scientific method could be used}, use some logic, and work the problem; just as I demonstrated in my last post.
You said in Message 677: "Using the same methodologies, I can definitively say that this is a ‘man in a suit’ not a ‘Real’ Bigfoot." I'm asking you how YOU came to that conclusion. Be specific. What SPECIFIC features of the video prompted your conclusion?
I'm being difficult about this because your basic claim seems to be that there is "real" reality beneath what we can actually observe. I'm trying to get you to tell us how you can tell "real" reality from observed reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 686 by JRTjr01, posted 10-26-2015 10:44 AM JRTjr01 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 689 of 708 (771475)
10-26-2015 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 687 by JRTjr01
10-26-2015 11:40 AM


Re: Captain, we’ve strayed off course.
JRTjr01 writes:
As to wandering off course; we are so off course in this string already I have to keep reminding myself that the original question was:
I don't think we're so far off topic. It seems that if God did stop intervening in nature, believers wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Real Bigfoot or illusion of Bigfoot? Real God or illusion of God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 687 by JRTjr01, posted 10-26-2015 11:40 AM JRTjr01 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 695 by JRTjr01, posted 10-26-2015 1:01 PM ringo has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 690 of 708 (771479)
10-26-2015 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 680 by JRTjr01
10-25-2015 4:07 PM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
JRTjf01 writes:
I can see that none of them spell out identifying a frame of reference or determining the initial conditions so, are you saying that we should not consider the frame of reference or initial conditions??
They're self evidently too specific. They could be steps in some scientific experiments and not others. They're insufficiently general. That's why they're not included in any other description of the scientific method.
It would be like having steps to change the oil filter like this:
  1. Disconnect the bracket holding the air conditioner compressor and swing it out of the way.
  2. Drain the oil.
  3. Loosen and then unscrew the oil filter.
  4. ...etc...
Look at the first step about the air conditioner compressor. Obviously these instructions are for a specific model car and are not general instructions.
That's what's wrong with your scientific method. It's got steps that might be part of some scientific work and not others. It's not general. Even worse, it seems intended as part of promoting a view of Genesis as science.
Not trying to be unkind here, but, maybe you should read Ringo’s and my conversation from the beginning before suggesting that I am being evasive.
I did, and I told you I found that you and Ringo had begun discussing the issue of absolute truth.
On top of that he will say something, and when I point out the absurdity of his statement he will claim he meant something else by what he said; thus, my trying to get him to use a dictionary.
I think English must be a second language for you.
Why not get off your merry-go-round, adopt some widely accepted description of the scientific method from a neutral site, then start addressing the actual question of how one establishes what is true and what is not about the real world. Here's an outline of the scientific method from Wikipedia:
  1. Define a question
  2. Gather information and resources (observe)
  3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
  4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
  5. Analyze the data
  6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
  7. Publish results
  8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Here's a flowchart version frequently posted by RAZD:
Take your pick, or find another one, just don't use the one from the Biblical Paradoxes lecture series. It's bogus.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 680 by JRTjr01, posted 10-25-2015 4:07 PM JRTjr01 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024