Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8134 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-02-2014 12:30 PM
143 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Wyrdly
Upcoming Birthdays: Aurelia
Post Volume:
Total: 736,951 Year: 22,792/28,606 Month: 93/1,786 Week: 282/384 Day: 35/58 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
29NextFF
Author Topic:   The Three Kinds of Creationists
Panda
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 211 of 432 (657707)
03-30-2012 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Buzsaw
03-29-2012 10:42 PM


Re: The Three Four Kinds of Creationists
Buzsaw writes:

Only designations one, two and three allowed in science forums; you know, the YEC conventionalist ones who are easily rebutted.


Wrong - as usual.
All types of creationist are allowed in the science forums.

You are not banned because of your beliefs: you are banned because of your stupidity.


Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2012 10:42 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Buzsaw, posted 03-30-2012 8:08 AM Panda has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 212 of 432 (657711)
03-30-2012 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Tangle
03-30-2012 4:43 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Tangle writes:

The supernatural either doesn't exist or exists in a way we can never know about. (Because it doesn't interact with our natural world in any way that we can distinguish).

So because it doesn't (according to you) "interact" with our natural world in a way that you can't distinguish means we can (according to you) "never" know about it?

So in summary, it either doesn't exist or it doesn't matter to us if it does.

What do you mean by "it doesn't matter to us if it does"?

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Tangle, posted 03-30-2012 4:43 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Huntard, posted 03-30-2012 6:27 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 225 by Taq, posted 03-30-2012 10:53 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 213 of 432 (657712)
03-30-2012 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Chuck77
03-30-2012 6:13 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Hello again Chuck,

Chuck77 writes:

So because it doesn't (according to you) "interact" with our natural world in a way that you can't distinguish means we can (according to you) "never" know about it?


It can't really be determined by anybody. You may think it interacted with you, but there is as of yet no way of telling if it actully did. It is indistnguishable from a delusion, or aliens with thought ray devices. That is what Tangle meant. Iḿ not saying your delusional, by the way, I'm trying to explain the reasoning here.

What do you mean by "it doesn't matter to us if it does"?

He means that if it doesn't interact with the natural world in a way we can clearly distinguish, then it doesn't matter if it exists because it will never interact with us. And things that don't interact with us are irrelevant, by all intents and purposes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Chuck77, posted 03-30-2012 6:13 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Member (Idle past 376 days)
Posts: 9158
From: new york usa
Joined: 03-14-2003


Message 214 of 432 (657720)
03-30-2012 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Panda
03-30-2012 5:14 AM


Re: The Three Four Kinds of Creationists
Panda writes:

Buzsaw writes:

Only designations one, two and three allowed in science forums; you know, the YEC conventionalist ones who are easily rebutted.


Wrong - as usual.
All types of creationist are allowed in the science forums.
You are not banned because of your beliefs: you are banned because of your stupidity.

Ok, Mr/Ms Panda, how about you do the EvC thing and cite three or four examples of Buzsaw stupidity in the Science Fora. You have 8+ years to cherry pick them from.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Panda, posted 03-30-2012 5:14 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Panda, posted 03-30-2012 8:45 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 258 by PaulK, posted 03-30-2012 1:15 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Member (Idle past 376 days)
Posts: 9158
From: new york usa
Joined: 03-14-2003


Message 215 of 432 (657721)
03-30-2012 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Chuck77
03-30-2012 4:31 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Hi Chuck. What is the SN?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Chuck77, posted 03-30-2012 4:31 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Theodoric, posted 03-30-2012 8:43 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4539
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 216 of 432 (657723)
03-30-2012 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Buzsaw
03-30-2012 8:15 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
This would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Thanks for making Panda's point.

Thats one and no one even had to look.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Buzsaw, posted 03-30-2012 8:15 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 217 of 432 (657724)
03-30-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Buzsaw
03-30-2012 8:08 AM


Re: The Three Four Kinds of Creationists
Buzsaw writes:

Ok, Mr/Ms Panda, how about you do the EvC thing and cite three or four examples of Buzsaw stupidity in the Science Fora. You have 8+ years to cherry pick them from.


Well, the first example of your stupidity is that very reply:
quote:
how about you do the EvC thing and cite three or four examples of Buzsaw stupidity in the Science Fora
I said you were banned from the science forums for stupidity.
It is stupid of you to think that I need to provide more than the stupidity that you were banned for.

And here is the actual stupidity that you got banned for:

Admin writes:

The history is that this is the second time Buzsaw has been asked to cease his participation in the science forums. After the first time Buzsaw requested readmission, stating that he now understood he needed to provide evidence, so I granted the request. But the result was that Buzsaw merely began using the word "evidence" a lot without actually producing any evidence that supported his positions.

The third piece of stupidity you are guilty of is not knowing why you were banned.

And lastly, the fourth example of your stupidity will be your response to this message.


Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Buzsaw, posted 03-30-2012 8:08 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 9961
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 218 of 432 (657728)
03-30-2012 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by jar
03-29-2012 7:12 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Straggler writes:

Entity A is empirically detectable. Entity A has some unusual abilities the effects of which are also empirically detectable. Entity A may or may not be a supernatural/magical/whatever being.

Can we scientifically investigate Entity A and it's unusual abilities?

jar writes:

We can investigate it.....

jar writes:

How do you test anything that is not natural?

Using the same methods and techniques that we would use to investigate things whose natural/supernatural status is unknown. Things such as entity A above. Things which you have already agreed we can investigate.

You obviously have some deep attachment to the notion that supernatural things are inherently immune from scientific investigation and aren't willing to have this notion challenged.

But the bottom line here is that if something exists and is detectable it can be scientifically studied. Whether it is supernatural, or known to be supernatural, has no bearing on this.

You haven't offered any reason for this not to be the case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 7:12 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 9961
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 219 of 432 (657729)
03-30-2012 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by jar
03-29-2012 8:12 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Perdie writes:

Is a leprechaun that can magically summon gold coins out of the air supernatural or not?

jar writes:

Nope. It's unexplained.

"Unexplained" and "supernatural" are not mutually exclusive.

Our hypothetical little green friend who may or may not be a genuinely supernatural/magical Leprechaun can teleport. We can scientifically investigate how far he can teleport. We can investigate how fast he can teleport (is it instantaneous and thus faster than light? etc. etc.). We can take skin grafts and blood samples, brain scans and urine samples. We can conduct material analysis on his litle green cloak. Whether he is a genuinely supernatural being has no bearing on our ability to conduct these tests. It depends only on the empirically verifiable existence of him and his abilities.

In short - We can scientifically study the little green entity in question whether it is supernatural or not.

So to say that if it is supernatural then we can't study it doesn't make any sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 03-29-2012 8:12 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 03-30-2012 10:47 AM Straggler has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2311
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 220 of 432 (657734)
03-30-2012 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Straggler
03-29-2012 11:03 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Straggler writes:

Good. So are you claiming that supernatural things are simply unable to be detetected by definition?


Well it stands to reason if something breaks the laws of physics, and is inexplicable to every and all inquiry then the only word that best describes such a thing would be....hmmm let me think.....oh yeah,
supernatural

Straggler writes:

If it is undetetable how can it ever be detected and how can anyone ever claim to have any inkling of it's existence?

Yes that is a pickle. As we speak scientist deep in the Earth are monitoring wafers of geranium hooked to vast arrays of computers in the attempt to catch a dark matter particle interacting with geranium atoms to show physical evidence of a substance that supposedly makes up 1/3 of the matter in our universe.. The particles are for all intensive purposes are undectectable and yet we have a inkling of they're existence, que no? Is dark matter supernatural?

There is another theory that reality itself is nothing more than a 2D holograph

If existence itself is illusory then perhaps there is no such thing as supernatural. Perhaps its just a word we use when we do not know the answer.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 11:03 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2012 10:35 AM 1.61803 has responded
 Message 223 by Taq, posted 03-30-2012 10:49 AM 1.61803 has responded
 Message 241 by ooh-child, posted 03-30-2012 12:13 PM 1.61803 has responded
 Message 272 by Buzsaw, posted 03-31-2012 12:09 AM 1.61803 has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 9961
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 221 of 432 (657738)
03-30-2012 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by 1.61803
03-30-2012 10:26 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Straggler writes:

Good. So are you claiming that supernatural things are simply unable to be detetected by definition?

Numbers writes:

Well it stands to reason if something breaks the laws of physics, and is inexplicable to every and all inquiry then the only word that best describes such a thing would be....hmmm let me think.....oh yeah, supernatural

Do you think "detectable" and "explicable" mean the same thing or can a phenomenon be both detectable and inexplicable?

I refer you to the teleporting Leprechaun example above. Message 219

Numbers writes:

The particles are for all intensive purposes are undectectable and yet we have a inkling of they're existence, que no? Is dark matter supernatural?

I doubt it. But we are scientifically studying dark matter whether it is or isn't aren't we?

Numbers writes:

If existence itself is illusory then perhaps there is no such thing as supernatural. Perhaps its just a word we use when we do not know the answer.

The term certainly has a track record of being used by those who think they have an answer that has consistently turned out to be wrong.

But that isn't really the same thing.....

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 10:26 AM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 10:52 AM Straggler has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24683
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 222 of 432 (657739)
03-30-2012 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Straggler
03-30-2012 9:45 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Let me reply to both this and the preceding post at the same time.

No, you are not studying the supernatural and you have not shown any hint that you are studying the supernatural.

You are studying something and you can record any natural facts evidenced there, but you have not shown any example of studying anything supernatural.

I think the difference between your position and mine will remain as a definitional issue but I will try yet again to create an example that might help.

You can watch a magician (entertainer) and record his every move including all of the preparation that went before performing the trick. Perhaps that will provide enough evidence to understand how the magic trick was created; but that is not studying magic.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2012 9:45 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2012 11:02 AM jar has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5230
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 223 of 432 (657740)
03-30-2012 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by 1.61803
03-30-2012 10:26 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
The particles are for all intensive purposes are undectectable . . .

Not entirely. We can observe their gravitational effects through lensing. One of the more famous examples is the collision between two star clusters:

http://home.slac.stanford.edu/...sreleases/2006/20060821.htm

In this example it demonstrates how dark matter interacts differently than luminous matter, and how such a collision can actually separate the two.

So does this count as an observation of the supernatural? Why not just call gravity supernatural since, like dark matter, we can not directly observe gravity, only its effects on surrounding objects.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 10:26 AM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 11:00 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2311
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 224 of 432 (657741)
03-30-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Straggler
03-30-2012 10:35 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
Straggler writes:

Do you think "detectable" and "explicable" mean the same thing

No.

Straggler writes:

..or can a phenomenon be both detectable and inexplicable?

I think it depends on the 'nature' of the phenomenon. heh.

As of yet it is still inexplicable how abiogenesis occurred and yet we know it did.

It is yet inexplicable how the universe inflated yet that seems to be the most reasonable explanation.

We can detect the effects of quantum entanglement and yet it baffles and is inexplicable.

These concepts are not supernatural but are a mystery.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2012 10:35 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2012 11:19 AM 1.61803 has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5230
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 225 of 432 (657742)
03-30-2012 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Chuck77
03-30-2012 6:13 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
So because it doesn't (according to you) "interact" with our natural world in a way that you can't distinguish means we can (according to you) "never" know about it?

If you disagree, perhaps you can tell us how we can gain verifiable and demonstrable knowledge of something that does not interact with reality in a detectable way?

What do you mean by "it doesn't matter to us if it does"?

It means that it is irrelevant. To use another example, if I am keeping score in a basketball game does it really matter how many grains of sand there are on the Moon? One has nothing to do with the other. It is irrelevant. The same for the supernatural, as it so appears. The supernatural is irrelevant to how nature works since the supernatural has no discernable effect on nature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Chuck77, posted 03-30-2012 6:13 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by 1.61803, posted 03-30-2012 11:18 AM Taq has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
29NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014