Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Testing Theories of Origins
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 143 (694573)
03-25-2013 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 9:27 PM


Re: Clarification
If there are outstanding issues that any member feels I have neglected, please let me know and I will attempt to address your question. In the meantime, I am going to think through debating the evidence.
You can of course end this discussion at any time. But the consensus here seems to be at best that the five minor tests are completely without merit, and at worst intended to give unestablished theories an extra boost. You have in fact rejected at least one proposed test (acceptance by the scientist) on the sole basis that it did not provide this boost.
Expect to spend substantial time defending your tests as well as the evidence. As long as your new thread allows this I don't care whether you end this thread now or continue the discussion.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 9:27 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 10:49 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 110 of 143 (694575)
03-25-2013 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Drosophilla
03-25-2013 3:42 PM


Re: Clarification
Meanwhile on planet Earth and the Scientific Method the word 'prediction' has a completely different meaning. It means, given a data set and a particular hypothesis you can predict the outcome - not in the future but here NOW. This is what is meant by 'prediction'.
There can be a little more to things than that. For example, once Einstein had expressed general relativity in mathematical form, the resulting equations allowed making predictions in realms not even considered when Einstein was working on the theory. For example, from solutions of Einstein's equations came models of charged and uncharged Black holes, and models of the universe from manipulations of the mathematics. This is true predictive power that is unmatched in non mathematical formulations of theories.
Of course, math is not physics. So such predictions require verification by observation and experiment. But general relativity has been verified time and again. We might make similar comments regarding quantum theory.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Drosophilla, posted 03-25-2013 3:42 PM Drosophilla has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 113 of 143 (694582)
03-25-2013 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 10:49 PM


Re: Clarification
I rejected the proposed test "acceptance by scientists" as circular reasoning that gives the status quo an unfair advantage
I do not know of any established scientist that would propose such a test.
I submit that you cannot name any scientist who would reject such a test. But in the interest of providing what you ask, I point to DI's continuing efforts to maintain a long list of scientists who reject evolution. Why do so if such a list is not a meaningful indication that evolution should be rejected.
I would suggest that your personal pplication of the 'censorship' test gives bogus clap-trap an unfair advantage even if the dismissal is completely valid. Because nonsense is bound to be rejected by everyone. Yet you yourself make no effort whatsoever to distinguish between rejection of failed propositions or unfair discrimination.
It should be noted that creationism predates evolution and big bang cosmology. Yet efforts to block these propositions by religion are completely dismissed by you and Ross. In fact your comments have made it clear that you disfavor more than one test that points to the status quo.
I suppose at bottom, I simply don't trust you after the last debates we participated in. I'm not seeing anything in this thread that causes me to think this discussion will be any more fruitful. The topic is interesting, but this thread is full of unaddressed concerns and summary dismissals on your part.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 10:49 PM designtheorist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 03-26-2013 7:44 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 143 (694687)
03-27-2013 7:59 AM


Same stuff different day
An OP, full of vigor and expectation starts thread promising to end all doubt, solve world hunger, or whatever. Three posts in, the logic fallacy behind the OP's proclamations are exposed, but denial keeps the post going for a 100 or more messages. Finally, the kitchen becomes too hot and the OP bolts, never acknowledging an error.
The above is designtheorist's history. You can click on his handle and see the same sorry 'bad premise-denial-bolt' performance in multiple threads that he has started. He never vets his own sources; that's our job, he claims. He simply denies science he does not understand, and then he loses and bolts, never acknowledging more than the tiniest error.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 03-27-2013 10:02 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 143 (694691)
03-27-2013 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Blue Jay
03-27-2013 10:02 AM


Re: Same stuff different day
Designtheorist is a very good writer
He's a better writer than I am at least...
But, this is creationism, I think: lots of nice presentation, but very poor substance.
I think he's more of an ID proponent than the typical YEC would be.
And I still don't know what the "RTB Model"
I think designtheorist intends to get there eventually. Right now what he seems to be leading up to is establishing set of criteria that can be used to declare RTP the winner. In the meantime portions of Dr. Ross' book are available through Google. He also has a website up.
The heuristics remind of concepts that are applied in law. For example in patent law, which is what I practice, legal battles often revolve around whether the invention described in a patent is an obvious extention of things already known and hence not worth of a patent.
Determining that an invention is obvious is a very subjective process, so the determination is supplemented by the use of objective inquiries. The objective tests are easier to agree on, but they are not completely accurate. In other word, heuristics.
One such test is that if after an invention is released, competitors are quick to copy or license the invention, then it is more likely that the invention is non-obvious. The rationale is that if an invention were obvious and clearly valuable, then competitors would have implemented it without needing an example.
In court however, these heuristics are not guaranteed winners, because infringers are free to propose alternate explanations that support a finding of obviousness despite the fact that the heuristic is met. For example, competitors might chose to license an obvious invention because paying a royalty is much cheaper than filing and winning a law suit.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 03-27-2013 10:02 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 143 (694699)
03-27-2013 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Tangle
03-27-2013 11:28 AM


Re: Same stuff different day
I've been discussing this sort of stuff with various people for years - though nowhere near as intensely as you must have been - and the thing that returns over and over again, is how a firm belief overrides intellect.
I believe that we all have the vulnerability you describe above, and that for each of us, there is a topic or two on which we behave as if incapable of rational, logical thought. For example, not every zealous argument by opponents of creationism is free from error.
That said, I fear that you have may have gone a bit overboard with your list of people capable of logic.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2013 11:28 AM Tangle 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