Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 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.
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 227 of 485 (570652)
07-28-2010 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by crashfrog
07-28-2010 3:22 AM


crashfrog writes:
quote:
How would evidence "point to a non-material explanation"? How would you tell the difference between evidence not yet explained materially, and evidence that can never be explained materially?
Well, one way would be manifestation. I've often brought this up as an example in another context ("Is there anything that happens on its own?"), but it seems to fit here:
Suppose you had a handful of coins and you tossed them on the ground. You then take an identical set of coins and deliberately, consciously, and personally set them down in an identical pattern to the one you just tossed on the ground.
How could you tell the difference between the coins that got that way on their own ("Is there anything that happens on its own?") and the ones that were put there deliberately?
Well, one way would be for me to come forward and say, "I did this. Here, watch me do it again."
This is connected to general skeptical inquiry: How do you tell the difference between a charlatan and the real thing? Well, you have to put in controls and get someone who understands how someone fakes such things keeping an eye out for just such fakery.

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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 3:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 5:21 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 262 of 485 (570836)
07-29-2010 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by crashfrog
07-28-2010 5:21 AM


crashfrog responds to me:
quote:
But it seems to me that there's little reason to suspect that even if someone could do psychic surgery, or remote viewing, or mental telepathy or whatever, they're able to do so by fundamentally metaphysical or supernatural means.
Well, that gets to the question of just what is meant by "supernatural." Depending on how one defines "natural," there is no such thing as "supernatural" because everything is "natural"...just not necessarily easy or capable of being done by a particular being.
Humans cannot breathe water "naturally." That doesn't make breathing water "supernatural." It just means that the method of extracting oxygen from water is not present in the biology of humans and cannot be done.
This is a kin to the claim that we should worship god because god created us. Well, on a much more visceral level, my parents created me but that hardly means I owe them any worship and they are certainly not gods. Just because a being is tremendously powerful doesn't mean he is god.
I don't have a good answer for the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural." Let's assume that the Second Law is true but there is a being that seemingly can break it at will. Well, it has to be done somehow. There is a process involved. That process is "natural" even if none of us are capable of it.
This is connected to the question of god and good: Is it good because god does it or does god do it because it's good? Are the "laws of physics" immutable and thus wouldn't someone who could break them be "supernatural" or is that just evidence that the "laws of physics" aren't what we think they are?

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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 5:21 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2010 4:24 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 264 of 485 (570838)
07-29-2010 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by nwr
07-28-2010 12:22 PM


nwr responds to Bolder-dash:
quote:
quote:
We are talking about the volunteers administering the tests, like the one's turning over cards, or sending out the mental image.
Then perhaps you are talking about wholesale cheating.
That's what Gardner points out in Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus. In studies of psychic phenomena, the method by which data is collected is very important. A study was developed to "test" the ability to predict the outcome of a random number but what was really being studied was the way in which the people recording the results were doing so.
They found that in those results that showed a high level of precognitive ability, there were massive errors in the data collection.
If you want it to work, you'll do what it takes to make it work, even if that means faking it.

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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by nwr, posted 07-28-2010 12:22 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 275 of 485 (571074)
07-30-2010 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000
07-27-2010 7:34 PM


marc9000 responds to Bluejay:
quote:
quote:
Since religion answers every question for many Creationists,
Can you imagine, or have you ever known, any creationist making that claim?
William Jennings Bryan did. You have actually read the transcript of the Scopes trial, haven't you? A lot of his responses to Darrow were of the form, "I haven't looked into it because the Bible is all I need."

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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 07-27-2010 7:34 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by marc9000, posted 07-31-2010 9:51 PM Rrhain 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