|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9077 total) |
| |
Contrarian | |
Total: 894,085 Year: 5,197/6,534 Month: 40/577 Week: 28/80 Day: 15/13 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 682 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1754 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
The most important questions are in the yellow section, and relate to the basis of your arguments against my theory on this thread.
Do you think that the SB concept of an Earth supporting giant turtle is a figment of the human imagination, or do you think there's a real one? Do you think that the well documented evidence for human evolution effectively falsifies the SB concept of the three brothers who created the first two humans from logs, and shows them to be a figment of the human imagination? Do you think that the theory that the earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old is not a scientific theory because the unsupported "anti-thesis" of omphalism has not been falsified? Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some human beings"? Do you think that scientific theories are "illogical" and not scientific theories if they are based on inductive reasoning? Your arguments in this thread are all based on your apparent belief in those last two. If you can't answer "yes", your arguments are all destroyed. If you answer "yes", you will be wrong in both cases, and you will have demonstrated that you don't understand the basics of science. You're stuck. Do you think scientific theories become non-existence if people tell lies in silly charts? Do you know of a confirmed source of the supernatural concepts we humans have in our minds other than human invention? These questions are all on the topic of the theory. quote: You are now apparently claiming that an unknown universal truth is an alternative known source of supernatural beings. Unsupported claims don't weaken scientific theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1754 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
This is your claim, based on two beliefs that you keep expressing. (1) That scientific theories can't exist without falsifying unsupported contradictory claims. This would mean that there are no scientific theories. (2) That it's "illogical" and invalid to use inductive reasoning to establish theories. This also would mean that there would be no scientific theories, only facts. You may not be capable of understanding this, but your two false beliefs described above are the basis of your arguments that I don't have a theory.
See point (1) above. Give just one example of one individual who is known to have experienced, even just once, a real SB that actually exists outside human brains. You can't, can you? The conclusion, a theory, is a result of inductive reasoning. The SBs concepts in our minds have only one known source, that of Tinkerbell, the YEC god, and the giant who built a causeway that's actually a volcanic formation. Human invention. Scientists have no way of distinguishing an individual adult animal found in the wild that was born of another animal from an individual adult animal found in the wild that previously was conjured magically out of a hat, or created at the whim of some gods who decided some extra rabbits were needed to feed the local foxes. But, as with the real communicating SBs, we have no known example of a single magically produced animal, and Pasteur's law + evolutionary theory are not damaged by unsupported claims of origins. The animals are assumed, by inductive reasoning, to come from their only known source. Some religious people believing that the ex-nihilo creation of animals once happened does not weaken any scientific theory, just like all unsupported religious beliefs (your Hindu hypothesis for example). I shouldn't have to keep explaining this. Has it occurred to you that you might be out of your depth, and taking up a straightforward hobby like golf might be more in keeping with your talents than discussing science on the internet?
I have. It's hardly my fault that you don't understand what objective empirical evidence is. You seem to think it has to involve Hindu beliefs, for some strange reason. It doesn't. Just repeatable observations.
Really? Which SB descriptions are known to be "aspects" of a known "universal truth", or a known real extant SB? Human invention of SBs is known to all of us (we can all do it at will, for a start).
I have. Your apparent position that religious beliefs are evidence rather than the repeatable observations I've made is not scientific. It's nuts.
Again, you can't blame me for your inability to understand the evidence presented that human invention is the only known source of SBs. I've explained why I keep asking you two important questions at the beginning of the post, and in previous posts.
When something is the only known source of a described group of things (like clouds of raindrops and adult rabbits of baby rabbits) the evidence that all of the group come from that source is overwhelming, and easily understood by all intelligent people. If I remember correctly, the early posts were mainly about trying to explain to someone the difference between scientific theories and facts, and your incompetence is hardly my fault.
Nothing.
No. Now, stop pretending you understand science, and answer my questions, which are aimed at seeing if you're qualified to discuss science at an adult level on the internet. Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some people"? Do you think that theories established using inductive reasoning are "illogical", and therefore cannot be scientific theories? Your posts throughout this thread indicate (very strongly) that you should answer "yes" to these two questions. There's no point in you repeatedly claiming that I have no theory, or that it's weak, without answering these questions intelligently. At present, it has the same value as a ten year old making the same claim of "no theory (which he might well do with brightly coloured posts and flashing text).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1754 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
I'm representing them very accurately. You're clearly not capable of understanding their implications.
You're a fantasist. 1) Humans can and do make up SBs. 2) Human invention is the only known source of SBs. Inductive theory: All SBs are figments of the human imagination. 1) Some Hindus (and RAZD) believe that all SBs are aspects of an undescribed unknown universal truth. 2) Religious beliefs are believed by RAZD to be evidence of truths. 3) Conclusion: RAZD believes he has a supported hypothesis that all SBs are aspects of an undescribed unknown universal truth. Are you trying to make the peanuts laugh? So, you do believe that scientific theories have to compete with unsupported claims that contradict them. Take up golf. Please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1754 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Here are the two posts that seem to have provoked your latest bout of histrionics. What's your problem?
Your brother xongsmith makes a point very similar to one I've made on this thread, and includes the phrase "bluegenes may not have realized it". Because of that phrase, I reply, linking to a post which showed that I had realized the general point that he's making. Now, if you want to accuse me of lying, quote the exact phrase which you think is a lie. Is there something about "specific SB-concept" that you don't understand?
Would you care to clarify what you mean by "supernatural being named and described by objective empirical evidence"? Give some examples of some supernatural beings that would fit the description and some that wouldn't if you can.
Which of those three statements is wrong, and why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1754 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
I repeat, you spend a lot of time on this board presenting evidence against the YEC SB-concept. Not other interpretations of the Bible, or other Christian SB-concepts, but that specific one. An SB-concept can only be defined by its description. I did not say that you were intentionally presenting evidence in order to falsify a specific SB-concept. I'm well aware that you could be doing it inadvertently.. An example. Someone presenting the known evidence about the causes of human diseases in a series of lectures would be inadvertently presenting evidence against the specific SB-concept of the evil spirits that cause disease. The evil spirits could be something the lecturer hadn't even considered when preparing his talks. He wouldn't be presenting direct evidence against English garden fairies, werewolves, or pixies.
You keep repeating this in large yellow text, as if you think that you're saying something important. In my last post, I asked you what it meant, and to give examples of supernatural beings "named and described by objective empirical evidence". What do you mean by "named and described by empirical evidence"? Give examples of SBs "named and described by objective empirical evidence." You certainly won't be referring to stuff in the scientific literature which describes SB-concepts in papers containing words like "delusions" and "hallucinations", will you? So, what are you talking about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1754 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1754 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Once again, what does this mean? Is the giant Earth supporting turtle an example? Which supernatural beings have been described by "objective empirical evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1754 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
By that analogy, what you are claiming is that a story about Daniel Boone building a house on his own can be a story about David Crocket building the same house. Boone and Crocket can be the same person, or aspects of another person. Three black women could be Daniel Boone. So, a story about 3 non-universe creating SBs creating the first two human beings from logs can, in some mysterious way, be a story about something that actually did happened, like human evolution, and also perfectly compatible with a story about one universe creating god creating the first two humans from dust. They can all be distorted stories about the Earth supporting turtle, which, of course, cannot be a figment of the human imagination because RAZD doesn't want it to be. Where are the examples of SBs described by objective empirical evidence? Are they difficult to find? What about the Earth supporting giant turtle? It's a Hindu hypothesis. Edited by bluegenes, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1754 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
The creationist declares victory. Yet he refuses to tell us which supernatural beings have been "described by objective empirical evidence". I'll guess at what the argument might be. Creationist: We can observe that such and such a book/s, documents exist. Therefore, we have empirical evidence of the books/documents. The books/documents name and describe supernatural beings, therefore these beings are "described by empirical evidence". If interpretations of all these books/documents are made that leave us with unfalsifiable SB-concepts, then I can claim that: Not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate. Would RAZD make an argument that's that bad? We'll see. RAZD, is the giant Earth supporting turtle a figment of the human imagination, or is there really such a thing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1754 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
![]()
This is what belongs on the left side of your liar's chart, RAZD.
1) Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2) Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3) Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4) Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
I'm not going to help you at this stage. I recommended taking up golf as a hobby, or something else easy to understand. If you want to make a fool of yourself on the internet, it isn't really my problem. Think.
You've finally, if inadvertently, come up with a good analogy. But you've got it all wrong with your last phrase. If someone theorized that T. Rex is extinct, then the falsification would be a living T. Rex. But the fact that the falsification would appear to be difficult is not because there's anything wrong with the theory or the absolutely correct theoretical falsification. It's because it's a bloody strong theory that T. Rex is extinct.
What? Tell us how you know this? Supernatural doesn't mean in-detectable or shy. Carry on your analogy. If T. Rex were not extinct, there would always be, at any time, a good chance of falsification, and eventually it would happen (pretty quickly, I should think). I've got a very strong theory with explanatory power. One of the things it explains is why we're finding it so hard to find a single SB. Wake up.
Were you using the weird phrase "described by empirical evidence"? What the hell do you mean by that? If someone describes an SB, they describe an SB. Give me an example of an SB being "described by empirical evidence"? Just explain clearly what you mean. Does the world supporting turtle fit the description, and if so why, and if not, why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1754 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Would you please find out what the word "inadvertently" means.
Would you please find out what the word "inadvertently" means.
I see you've imagined a new set of SBs. The "SBs that are named and described by objective empirical evidence". Are you embarrassed to tell me which SBs are "named and described by objective empirical evidence"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1754 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
You really have no idea, do you? Now, correct your beginning here on your own, and show us that you understand what number one means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1754 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
As a celebration of more than 7 months and nearly 150 posts without falsification, just a brief summary of a few of my opponent's attempts to attack the theory.
RAZD shows here that he thinks that scientific theories are things that can be and should be proven.
No scientific theory, of course, has eliminated all other possibilities, otherwise they would be facts. But RAZD doesn't understand this basic point.
You have not proven your theory, bluegenes. Below, he thinks that unsupported religious beliefs and claims need to be falsified before a scientific theory can be established if those religious beliefs contradict the theory.
RAZD seems to think that unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict scientific theories need to be falsified in order for there to be any scientific theories. So, those theorizing that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old do not have a theory until they've falsified omphalism, and evolutionary biologists do not have a naturalistic theory until they've falsified omphalism and the nineteenth century claim that Satan laid down the fossils to confuse us, etc. So, any scientific theories or laws can be attacked by people making unsupported claims that contradict them in RAZD's little world. Weird. For people like RAZD, there is no science, and he's not even capable of understanding this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1754 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Wrong. Try again. Learn English if you're going to debate in it. Find an adult, and ask him or her what this means: 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 1754 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Caricatures of what? The fictional supernatural beings are in Set 2 by definition. They are supernatural beings described by the adjectives "fictional", or "imaginary". In English, we use phrases like the following: "Gandalf was a wizard." "J. M. Barrie wrote about a fairy called Tinkerbell." "Bluegenes has been inventing supernatural beings". Gandalf and Tinkerbell are in the category of supernatural beings we can describe by the adjectives "imaginary" and "fictional". They are in your set two and set one. Set 4 would be the category of supernatural beings that aren't invented by humans, and that set remains empty so far as this thread is concerned, as my very strong theory predicted it would last year.
How many times do I have to explain to you why the above is wrong? Scientific theories do not have to have to address unsupported claims that contradict them in the way you describe. No evolutionary biologist has to have a methodology/system/procedure for distinguishing an omphalist world from a non-omphalist world merely because the unsupported omphalist claim is made. What you're doing is showing that you don't understand scientific theories at all, and you're inadvertently illustrating the strength of my theory by resorting to arguments like the one in the paragraph above. Elsewhere in your posts above, you've repeated the IPU mistake that you've been making throughout the thread, and you've repeated your fascinating phrase "supernatural beings named and described by objective empirical evidence". I don't remember you giving any coherent answer when asked what you mean by this. Can you give me a list of supernatural beings that are named and described by "objective empirical evidence"? I asked before if the giant magic turtle that supports this planet is one such being, but I think you avoided the question. Once again, is it? It's definitely a figment of the imagination. On the peanut gallery you declare that:
If they're figments of the human imagination, they're natural. And you declare:
How do you know this? If there are "non-natural phenomena" that effect the natural world, then the effects are theoretically detectable and measurable by science. Prayer studies, for example, can be conducted scientifically, and could potentially falsify theories like mine. Supernatural beings that have absolutely no effect on the natural world (and therefore our brains) would have to be imagined. In other words, if it is theoretically impossible for science to identify a source of supernatural beings other than human invention, then it also theoretically impossible for them to be anything but our inventions. Direct questions: Do you agree that a giant turtle that supports this planet is a figment of the human imagination? Do you agree that the god that the YECs believe in, the supernatural being described by them, is a figment of their imaginations?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022