Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,136 Year: 5,393/9,624 Month: 418/323 Week: 58/204 Day: 34/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 43 of 485 (568595)
07-07-2010 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by tomato
07-06-2010 11:38 PM


Evolutionfairytale.com bills itself as a Christian ministry whose mission is to spread the Word. There's usually a few science-minded folk over there, I expect you encountered some of them. Last time I was there Adam Nagy was continually participating and moderating the same threads and couldn't be dissuaded from the behavior, so I finally left. Is he still an active moderator?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by tomato, posted 07-06-2010 11:38 PM tomato has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 54 of 485 (568620)
07-07-2010 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Big_Al35
07-07-2010 5:04 AM


BigAl35 writes:
I don't mean to be rude but you are typical of how evolutionists think. "let's see some documentation". Other typical quotes from evolutionists include "where's the evidence", "prove it", "show me one person who" etc etc....
I'm shocked, shocked, to discover that there are people thinking scientifically around here!
Come on, Al, tell us the truth. You're really an evolutionist with an odd sense of humor, right? Please tell us that they're aren't really creationists out there who would say something as ignorant as that.
But if you're serious then try naming something we know is true that we have no evidence for. You can't do it. The only way we could ever gain any confidence in something we know is by supporting evidence.
Creationism's claim is that it is every bit as much science as evolution and deserves equal treatment as science in the classroom, but if you really believe that then don't you think you need to know what science is and how it works?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Big_Al35, posted 07-07-2010 5:04 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 276 of 485 (571081)
07-30-2010 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by GDR
07-28-2010 7:08 PM


GDR writes:
I realize that it is a mathematical expression, but can it actually be used as an expression of anything that truly applies to the material world. If science found that things in the material world pointed to an answer of infinity wouldn't that be evidence of something beyond the natural?
Infinity as a mathematical concept is essential throughout broad realms of mathematical models of reality, but what you're really asking is what it would mean if one of these models yielded infinity as a final answer rather than just playing a role as part of the model.
One example of a mathematical model yielding an answer of infinity concerns the origin of the universe. If the current motion of matter is projected back in time it tells us that at T=0 all matter in the universe was concentrated at a single point of infinite density called the singularity. Most scientists interpret this as telling us that the model breaks down at this point, because infinite density seems impossible, and because quantum mechanics tell us that it isn't possible to know the precise position and momentum of a particle, and knowing where all particles were at T=0 violates this principle.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by GDR, posted 07-28-2010 7:08 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by GDR, posted 07-30-2010 10:17 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 277 of 485 (571086)
07-30-2010 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Bolder-dash
07-29-2010 7:53 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Assuming the supernatural is important to your argument then we had better agree on how one studies it. We have only our five senses to tell us about the world we live in, and as far as is known our senses have no supernatural detection capability. Anything our senses detect must be natural, i.e, light, sounds, smells, tastes, temperature, pressure, etc. Given this, how does one study the supernatural?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 7:53 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2010 9:45 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 282 of 485 (571101)
07-30-2010 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Bolder-dash
07-30-2010 9:45 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Hi Bolder-dash,
You're proposing that things we can't explain constitute evidence of the supernatural. The problem with this view is that the entire history of science is one of uncovering natural explanations for once inexplicable phenomena. Perhaps someday something we can't explain will be found to have a supernatural origin, but it hasn't happened yet.
Given this long history of failure if you believe the supernatural should still be considered a valid possibility for unexplained phenomena then that's your prerogative, but the fact remains that it is a explanation without evidence. In science one only considers phenomena which are known through evidence to exist, and that's why I asked how you propose the supernatural should be studied since it has not thus far ever been observed to have an impact on the natural world.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2010 9:45 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2010 10:57 AM Percy has replied
 Message 297 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2010 7:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 284 of 485 (571108)
07-30-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Bolder-dash
07-30-2010 10:57 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
What I just suggested to you is not evidence, but fossils are evidence for how the theory of evolution works?
Fossils are evidence that the process of descent with modification and natural selection that we observe operating in the world today was also operating throughout the history of life on Earth.
You're claiming that your example is evidence of something never before observed, the supernatural, but this evidence isn't of the same quality as fossils, i.e., scientifically gathered and analyzed. This is why I keep asking how you propose to study the supernatural if our senses can only detect the natural. Your example makes it clear that you believe the supernatural can affect the natural and that of course our senses can detect such effects, and if that's true then supernaturalists should have not trouble developing evidence for it.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2010 10:57 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 317 of 485 (571274)
07-31-2010 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Bolder-dash
07-30-2010 7:48 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
By what standard are you using to say that one piece of evidence is suitable [and another not]...
The scientific standard of evidence. Observable, repeatable, peer-reviewed and replicated evidence. What you have with your near-death stories and out of body experiences is anecdotal evidence. Were spirits to appear daily in the sky then the phenomena could be scientifically studied. Scientists could examine the electromagnetic and gravitational evidence and its meteorological influences and so forth to better understand the phenomena. The published research could be reviewed both before and after publication to judge the quality and begin forming a consensus within the scientific community.
Fossils have been scientifically studied and found to be a result of natural processes that were at work both long ago and today. Near-death and out-of-body experiences have not.
I keep asking you how you propose to study the supernatural, but since you're not answering let me suggest an experiment for studying near-death and out-of-body experiences. Scientists could seek out patients undergoing potentially risky procedures who are willing to participate in a scientific experiment where everything would be filmed and also monitored by scientific equipment to measure electromagnetic emissions and gravitational changes. The patient would be provided a list of questions that he would be asked to answer about what happened during the procedure and while he was under sedation.
Some hopefully small percentage of these patients will have near-death experiences, and scientists can study the differences in the answers and the scientific monitoring results between patients who did and did not have a near-death experience.
In the absence of scientific evidence, given what we know of physics and plain old human psychology it seems a near certainty to me that near-death experiences are hooey. When there's some scientific evidence for them then I'll happily reexamine my opinion. Your problem is that you're willing to form firmly held opinions with only anecdotal evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2010 7:48 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 6:56 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 321 of 485 (571286)
07-31-2010 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 6:56 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
Have you ever watched Ghost Lab?
No, I'm afraid I haven't heard of it. Have you ever watched Penn & Teller's Bullshit? Here's a link to their episode on ghost busters (standard mode is free, don't click on HD if you don't want to sign up; also, nudity alert!):
How does a fossil tell you anything about the processes that brought it into being?
Fossils are the mineralized bones of long dead creatures. The appearance of fossils through progressive geological layers reflects change over time. Genetics tells us how life just going about its business of living and reproducing must change over time because reproduction is not perfect and cannot create perfect copies. Fossils record life's history of changing forms due to imperfect reproduction combined with natural selection.
You can reject the inference, but this would require you to believe that ancient creatures reproduced via mechanisms not in evidence today, and it leaves you with no explanation for the change in fossil appearance over time.
What is repeatable about studying a fossil?
Crash answered this briefly. As he said, many scientists can study the same fossil. Even better, in many, many cases we have multiple specimens of the same fossil, and in some cases thousands and even tens of thousands of specimens. And the progressive change in fossil appearance over time appears in the geologic record at literally thousands and thousands of sites around the world. The opportunities for multiple scientists to study multiple specimens at or from multiple sites is what is meant by repeatable and replicable.
You have asked me how to study the super-natural and I have answered-if people who are flatlined (dead) at the time a conversation about them is taking place, and they are able to recall that conversation-that is not evidence?
That's the definition of anecdotal. Funny how these things never happen as soon as you start doing something as simple as making live videos of everything. There doesn't even have to be a scientist present to keep it from happening. Just bring a video camera and watch the supernatural phenomena disappear.
I think the point is that you seem prepared to already decide that it is not possible to ever study any super-natural activity...
On the contrary, I explained precisely how you would conduct a scientific study of near-death experiences. I stand willing and able to consider the scientific evidence for the supernatural as soon as you present some.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 6:56 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 10:31 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 333 of 485 (571319)
07-31-2010 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 10:31 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
Gee, funny I thought when you said repeatable, that you meant the experiments could be repeated, not that more than one person can look at the same evidence.
Wow, this is getting tough because in each response you reveal vast new realms of uncomprehension. Science is the process by which we develop an understanding of the universe we live in. The data that drives that understanding is gathered through observations. The observations may be of a process we set in motion ourselves, an experiment, for example, such as one might conduct in a chemistry lab. Or the observations may be of a process taking place wholly without any human intervention, such as astronomical observations through a telescope.
Applying this to fossils, they can be weighed, measured, analyzed chemically, and observed under a microscope. For a recent example, one researcher discovered the remains of blood cells in an ancient fossil. The discovery was largely discounted because of the unlikelihood, but as time went on and other researcher applied similar techniques they were more and more often able to see the blood cells for themselves. This is successful replication.
For another fossil example, Tiktaalik was discovered because past fossil discoveries told paleontologists in which geological layers they could expect to find a creature with the mix of sea and land characteristics representative of the first land-based animal life.
In your near-death experience example that you have yet to cite any scientific evidence for, what is it in its role as supporting evidence for the supernatural that you find analogous to fossil evidence's role in supporting evolution?
Is all anecdotal evidence invalid?
As scientific evidence? Yeah, it's pretty much invalid.
Look at it this way. A guy comes up to you in Walmart and says, "There's a sale on blenders in aisle five." That's anecdotal evidence of a sale, but pretty believable because stores offer sales all the time, and if you were in the market for a new blender you'd probably head over to aisle five.
What if the same guy comes up to you in Walmart and says, "They're giving away hundred dollar bills in aisle five." You might head over to aisle five just to see what's going on, but you probably wouldn't believe him.
Now imagine the same guy comes up to you in Walmart and says, "A guy just had an out-of-body experience in aisle five." You didn't believe the hundred dollar bill give away, so why would you believe the far more incredibly unlikely out-of-body experience story? Even if it was Roger Ebert telling you himself?
Anecdotal evidence isn't necessarily invalid or worthless. It's just that it has low reliability and precision and is therefore fairly useless as scientific evidence.
That's a whole lot of "scientific" studies that you now wish to wipe out. I guess all of psychology is doomed to the dustbin of pseudo-science.
Are you channeling Bozo the Clown or something? Where do you get this stuff?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 10:31 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 11:36 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 338 of 485 (571335)
07-31-2010 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 11:36 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
Gee Percy, I really didn't think the anecdotal evidence that I suggested to you was really that hard to understand. A person was able to recall a conversation that other people were having that happened while he was dead. Not something you might normally expect. If that is incomprehensible to you I can't really take the blame.
Hmmm. I'm beginning to wonder if maybe English is a 2nd or 3rd language for you.
Anyway, you misunderstood the criticism of your anecdotal evidence. There's nothing difficult to understand or incomprehensible about it. The problem is the opposite: it's simple minded. It doesn't qualify as scientific evidence because of low reliability and precision, the lack of replication, and the absence of any plausible mechanism.
I have no interest in convincing you are anyone else here that the evidence is true.
Then your level of success in convincing anyone coincides with your level of interest: none.
What is it about your example of near-death experiences as evidence for the supernatural that you find analogous to fossils as evidence for evolution?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 11:36 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 1:44 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 345 of 485 (571378)
07-31-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 1:44 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
First off, you initial statements about that kind of evidence was that it was not scientific. Do you wish to recant that? Is anecdotal evidence a valid scientific method?
I don't think it's the topic you're having trouble understanding. I think you're having a more fundamental problem with the English language. In the message you responded to I said, "It doesn't qualify as scientific evidence because of low reliability and precision, the lack of replication, and the absence of any plausible mechanism." How did you manage to conclude I was saying the opposite? You're going to have to begin reading more carefully.
Secondly, it is more than just anecdotal, one can actually confirm or deny whether the information the person claims to have heard when they were dead was correct. Did they hear the conversation correctly? For you to call that simple minded evidence is just rather stupid frankly. A guy is able to repeat back words that a doctor said to another doctor, while this patient had no brain activity. That's simple or you are simple?
People relating what they remember happened and what they said is the epitome of anecdotal. One way to climb the first rung of scientific evidence would be to record videos. These would show what was actually said for comparison. It would show the brain scan indicating no activity. When are you going to provide any evidence for this incredible near-death experience you keep telling us about?
ow, you are equating repeatability with the notion of more than one person being able to look at the evidence...
No, that's not what I said. That sounds more akin to peer review than replication.
...but rather the ability to repeat the evidence or experiment.
This is much closer to what I said. I don't know why you're having so much trouble understanding plain English, I even provided examples, see the post where I mentioned Tiktaalik.
Finally I didn't say that fossil evidence was analogous, I said that t is also unreliable for being able to draw conclusions about the mechanisms through which it came to be, a not so small fact that you seem to want to overlook.
Okay, then what is it about the fossil evidence that leads you to believe it is unreliable as to mechanisms in the same way as anecdotal stories about near-death experiences. With fossils we have actually observed the mechanisms we believe apply, while with near-death experiences you don't even have a mechanism, let alone any scientific evidence.
Again you do realize that MANY scientific fields aren't able to provide the photographic proof you seem to want it to -and that certainly includes the ToE. It is almost surprising that you want to even make this argument, when the actual physical evidence for evolution through Darwinian mechanisms is so scant as to be non-existent.
Again, you need to work at harder at reading for comprehension. No one said anything about photographic proof, or proof of any sort. Science is not in the business of proving things. However, it does do a far better job of supporting its claims with evidence then you do.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 1:44 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 348 of 485 (571385)
07-31-2010 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 2:19 PM


Re: Ebert's Out of Body Experience
Bolder-dash writes:
If you read what i wrote more carefully, I was responding to Percy who initially claimed that no amount of scientific data could provide evidence for a super-natural event.
You'd think that just by sheer luck you'd get something right at least once in a while, but no, here you are wrong again.
What I said was that our senses detect light, sound, taste, smells, pressure, temperature, etc., which are all natural phenomena, and I asked how you proposed to study supernatural phenomena. We're still waiting for an answer.
I believe this is one of just many ways in which one can provide evidence of supernatural things-but since Percy and others can't even see the simple rational of one experiencing life while they are dead as evidence for the supernatural-there is no reason for my hypothetical not to remain anything other than that.
If near-death experiences are an observable phenomena then there should be no difficulty gathering scientific evidence for them. Where's the evidence?
As far as Roger Ebert goes, I heard him talking about it. As such, I hardly need to provide evidence of it, as you can choose to believe it or not.
What have you done here that would give anyone any confidence in anything you say? I couldn't even find any mention of the story you're telling us about Ebert. How about improving your credibility a notch by providing links to evidence for your claims?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 2:19 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 2:49 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 353 of 485 (571416)
07-31-2010 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 2:19 PM


Re: Ebert's Out of Body Experience
Hey, Boldy, try this. Let's say you're a graduate student working for a professor who is gathering evidence of the supernatural. He sends you to observe at the local hospital, and one day you observe a guy flatline, recover, and then recount the conversations doctors had over his dead body. You report back to your professor and he's delighted, but he asks you for documentation and evidence. You respond that you saw it with your own eyes and that's it's the God's honest truth and that the doctor's will vouch for it.
Your professor explains that science doesn't work by accepting someone else's say so, and that he'll be presenting the paper to hundreds of fellow scientists at a prestigious conference who will want evidence. He tells you that he has to have documentary evidence of the events that transpired at the hospital so that he can include it in the paper and on slides during the presentation.
So you return to observing at the hospital. How would you modify your approach in order to satisfy your professor's request?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 2:19 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 369 of 485 (571561)
08-01-2010 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by Bolder-dash
08-01-2010 1:39 AM


Re: Ebert's Out of Body Experience
Hi Bolderdash,
You seem to have an extremely profound reading comprehension problem. Every one of your examples of someone else's error was actually of glaring errors in understanding on your part of the most basic sort. They're such fundamentally simple and obvious errors that I'm beginning to wonder if you're making these errors on purpose to disrupt and distract discussion and whether you're actually a troll.
Let's just stick to the topic, shall we? Can you provide any substantiation whatsoever of your Ebert supernatural near-death experience story, or of your other near-death experience story where someone flatlined, recovered, and then described conversations that took place while he was dead?
At least one thing's very clear. Whatever you personally might believe about the way evolutionists think, we sure don't think like you do.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-01-2010 1:39 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-01-2010 8:27 AM Percy has replied
 Message 374 by jar, posted 08-01-2010 10:13 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 372 of 485 (571574)
08-01-2010 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by Bolder-dash
08-01-2010 8:27 AM


Re: Ebert's Out of Body Experience
Bolder-dash writes:
Where did I err Percy? What did I not understand?
Oh, come on, stop playing dumb, everyone is commenting about your comprehension problems. It's not like they aren't as obvious as all get out. If you'd like to begin a thread about it over in Coffee House then go ahead and we'll attempt to help you as much as we are able, though I don't hold out much hope since the same comprehension problems will still be in play as we try to explain your comprehension problems to you - talk about a Catch 22! It's almost as if your strategy is to behave so stupidly that no one can ignore it so that you can derail the discussion onto how mistreated you are. The goal of EvC Forum is to have discussions that actually get somewhere, but with you we're stuck on explaining what simple English sentences mean.
So back to the topic. Can you provide any substantiation whatsoever of your Ebert supernatural near-death experience story, or of your other near-death experience story where someone flatlined, recovered, and then described conversations that took place while he was dead? If we have something concrete to work from then it will be easier to assess how well they qualify as scientific evidence.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-01-2010 8:27 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-01-2010 10:13 AM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024