Anyone else notice this pattern?

dameeva writes:

quote:

---

Your beliefs are built on physical evidence and creationists on spiritual evidence but neither understands or accepts the other and yet you are describing the same thing.

---

Then explain the Catholic Church. The official position of the Catholic Church (stated by Leo XIII in the Encyclical and then expounded upon by John Paul II in the Magesterium) is that evolution is the only scientific theory we have to explain the diversification of life upon this planet.Are you implying that the Pope isn't spiritual? I'm not saying you have to agree with Catholic theology...just whether or not you think Catholics have a theology.You seem to think that it's an either/or, that evolution and god cannot exist together.Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?

dameeva responds to me:

quote:

---

Doesn't the church also preach a creation theory that is not at all scientific? You know the one, the theory about god and devil?

---

Until you can come up with a definition of "god" and "devil" that is amenable to examination and testing, science has no idea what those things mean. That doesn't mean they don't exist...it just means it doesn't know how to handle it.Science can tell you all sorts of things about a wave form: It's frequency, amplitude, energy, pattern, how far it will propagate in various media, etc. What it cannot do is tell you if it is "music."

quote:

---

How do you personally think god may exist in a different way to what you imagine I am thinking?

---

I'm sure I don't know. It's your concept of god. Why don't you tell us?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Woodsy responds to me:

quote:

---

I remember hearing on the radio of a researcher who formulated a set of rules for writing a popular song

---

But that requires an outside, arbitrary, socially-constructed definition of what a "popular song" is. Of course you can define physical characteristics of what might be termed "music," but it isn't like the concept of "music" is an external constant, independent of consciousness.

quote:

---

Anyway, I doubt that years and years of work by acoustics, neurology and musicology scholars have been entirely in vain.

---

As a musician, I am quite cognizant of music theory. But there is nothing inherent in the science of acoustics that dictates what it must be. There is no particular reason for the diatonic scale of Western music as opposed to the pentatonic scale of Eastern music. Science can explain why there is such a thing as an octave, but it isn't going to be able to tell you how to split it up.

quote:

---

I think that this "experience is unexplainable" stuff is highly overdone.

---

I didn't say it was unexplainable. I'm simply saying that it isn't science. That isn't to say there is nothing physical going on. It's that there comes a moment of arbitrary imposition that is not science.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Heinrik responds to me:

quote:

---

Evolutionists cannot prove their case against creationists, as you rightly point out.

---

Huh? Where did I say anything of the sort? Be specific.

quote:

---

Both are in the same position.

---

Incorrect. One side has a set of procedures that is independent of the observer. The other side, requires you to believe.

quote:

---

It isn't about who is right and who is wrong because until their is some mutual understanding, this debate will see us all dead and still carry on.

---

But you can't have a debate with someone who refuses to look through your telescope. How do you discuss the state of the fossil record when one side continually says that the fossil you are holding in your hand does not exist?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Woodsy responds to me:

quote:

---

One might say it produced "catchy" tunes.

---

Yes, but "catchy" is culturally defined. That doesn't mean the definition doesn't exist. It simply means that it is inherently tied to the culture in which it exists. It changes over time as the culture changes. The "catchy tunes" of today don't have any bearing on the "catchy tunes" of yesterday. If you're going to have an automatic creation of music (hello, Mozart!) then you need to define the general shape of what you're looking for first.

quote:

---

Personally, I expect that these things could be described in an organized way and the description could be verified by observation.

---

But that's just categorization, not science. Science doesn't make distinctions like "good" or "bad." It can't. What it can tell you is that if you define certain characteristics as "good," then it would seem that this object meets the criteria of what "good" is or what "bad" is.

quote:

---

There is probably an interesting discussion here, but I suppose it's off-topic for this thread. Pity.

---

Well, perhaps we should take it somewhere else. It seems to be in the border area between "Is It Science?" and "Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Heinrik asks:

quote:

---

Do you think creationists are also inept in their own chosen field?

---

Yes. If you look at creationist arguments, you will often find they have an "any port in a storm" method of argumentation. That is, they will latch onto any argument they think denies evolution, even if that argument directly contradicts a previous argument they have made. So long as the conclusion of the argument is, "And thus, evolution isn't true," it doesn't matter what the argument actually is. This goes along with a common pattern of being unable to express their thoughts well. Since they don't rightly understand their own argument, since they cannot see how the arguments relate, it is not surprising to see them be unable to articulate it very well.So yes, creationists are inept in their own chosen field.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.