hi, randy.
I don't expect you, arach, to see the delusion in jar's comments, but I suspect some others will. Jar, in a typical evo-mindset, thinks not of facts as independent empirically verified events, but things he should admit to, or deny, based on the person's viewpoint in discussing them. So he thinks, oh randman is attacking science,
your basic contention is that the hurricanes defied conventional science. that's the title of this thread. you seem to be taking every opportunity you can to take potshots at science, so it can be seen as not valid, somehow.
you are, at the most basic level, attacking science. don't pretend that you're not. and this fundamental level, you misunderstanding what models are.
a model for the path of a hurricane is a hypothetical, based on large amounts of data. there are 5 different groups that model projected paths, and storm strengths. the nhc, a sixth, averages those models and comes out with the typical "cone of destruction" probability map.
that's all it is. probability, and hypothesis. they are very often, actually almost always, wrong.
I better deny these hurricanes did anything unusual.
i've been living in south florida my entire life. these hurricanes didn't do anything unprecidented. unsuaul, maybe, but freak hurricanes seems to the par for the course this year (and last).
hurricanes have formed as late as dec 30th before, intensified over cold water, done loop-the-loops, rotated the wrong way, and this year we had one come across florida the wrong way, and actually intensify over land before hitting us (on the east coast).
weird stuff happens with large natural phenomina. we can't always predict everything. wilma, in particular, didn't take one of the projected paths -- it took something close to the average (i wasn't actually checking, we lost power quickly, so it was a total suprise when we got that huge eye over us).
Well, if I stated them with a different conclusion or angle or disposition, do the facts suddenly change? Heck, he even said he followed the stories closely and that these set of facts were wrong, but anyone that followed these stories knows that these 2 hurricanes defied conventional models.
the conventional model is that a hurricane forms off the coast of africa, intensifies over the atlantic, and smacks somewhere on the east coast of the us.
we've had a bunch of gulf hurricanes this year, a few back-tracking ones, and some general weirdness. it doesn't say the conventional model is WRONG, just that some weird stuff happened this year. it's not impossible, in our scientific understanding, just improbable. and the improbably can and does happen occasionally.
science is not an input-output situation. it's not a math equations that we plug everything into and get the 100% truth. in this case, it's about modeling hypothetical outcomes. and the models aren't always right. this year and last year, they were off.
we're heading into another intense hurricane cycle, something that we haven't had the opportunity to model before. we're bound to get a lot of stuff wrong. it doesn't mean that meteorology is a sham, or that god hates us, or that science is all bs. just that we don't know enough right now to make good predications.
So in typical evo-fashion, facts are only true when an evo sees them as non-threatening, but if they are threatening, they are wrong, and you guys really have no problem with that. it's amazing.
there's a common creationist saying: "facts are only true when they validate the bible." some prominent creationist said something to that effect (kent hovind?). it's always frustrating to see you sling arguments at us that apply to your camp a thousandfold.
we're not saying the facts are wrong. we're saying that the models being inaccurate doesn't mean all that much, and a few failed hypothesi are not going to overturn science.
אָרַח
™ Version 4.2
